Rep. Steny Hoyer says House GOP are like child hostage-takers threatening to shoot

If there’s ever a time when using the shooting of children as a metaphor is a good idea, December 2012 certainly isn’t that time. That’s what House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer did today though, telling reporters on Capitol Hill that the GOP’s fiscal cliff negotiations were “somewhat like taking your child hostage and saying to somebody else, ‘I’m going to shoot my child if you don’t do what I want done.'”

Earlier today, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid likened Rep. John Boehner to a dictator, which in retrospect doesn’t seem nearly as crass.

Yes, he did. It’s not so surprising when you consider that last year he accused the House GOP of having their chambers loaded and wanting to “shoot every bullet they can at the president.”

  • TheAmishDude

    I think the president is acting like somebody who is holding himself hostage, if you remember Blazing Saddles.

    • TexasJew

      More like Dr Strangelove, punching himself in the face

  • Danny Wheeler

    Good Lord! I never thought Hoyer would stoop that low!!!

    • peteee363

      then you must not know steny! he is lower then a pregnant ant, with broken legs.

    • mickeyco

      Why not? 32 years as a Dem (of course) rep from MD? Sounds reasonable to me.

  • Albert N. Milliron
  • Cath Wia

    Democrats need to be outed for what they are, sneaky, underhanded from all appearances, as well as lapdogs for Obama. Obama could care less for any one of them, would throw them under bus at any time. He is a “my way or highway” guy. His behavior is so crude and easily recognized as an abuser by one who has been around one. Need to find way to reach masses with truth in a way that they will hear…in their pocketbooks. Eventually, Obama will run out of freebees, and they will turn on him.

    • AmosDWright

      And that will matter, because? He’s in for four. Then out. He’ll play it however he wants right up to the end.

  • Discochip

    But naturally none of those Libtards in Congress will EV-AH mention Ahole Hoyer making an asinine analogy like shooting your own kid. Just like Barry the illegal alien will nevah mention the bizarre and near idiotic statements uttered by his foul-mouthed Veep. But if Sarah puts a crosshairs logo on her facebook page to make a metaphor of “putting Democrats in the crosshairs, i.e., targeting their districts” then the stuff hits the fan and all the Libtard media and the abortion loving fetus murderers who write blogs in Mommy’s basement and all the Libtards in Congress are suddenly up in arms. Hack ptui on them.

  • Fred Zanfardino

    That hostage garbage rhetoric is rich, considering this whole ‘fiscal cliff’ nonsense is a creation of Obama’s and with which he is trying to leverage the House to get the tax increases he wants.

    The House GOP are like dictators? Nope, they are trying to stop a dictator from further oppressing America. But then liberals get everything backwards.

    • EEKman

      The fiscal cliff was a creation of the Tea Party during the last debt ceiling negotiations that ultimately cost us billions and a credit downgrade.

      Both parties want tax increases. The democrats want to tax the people who can afford it, the republicans want to tax everyone else.

      The Tea party is trying to oppress the majority by threatening to default on bills congress already agreed to pay unless it gets what it wants, which according to all recent polls and the results of the election is what the majority of us DON’T want. Its a fitting analogy. If you think the analogy is outrageous, you probably don’t get what the debt ceiling really is.

      • AnnieFlyGirl

        Once again, a clueless twit. Doesn’t grasp what the “T”ax “E”nough “P”arty has been arguing for since the reckless nearly 1 trillion stimulus package was passed. Nor do the Republicans want to tax everyone else. Frankly when is our money ours? How many hours of the week am I supposed to work for the federal government? 10 or 20?

        • EEKman

          The “reckless” stimulus package was bi partisan, and it worked. It has less than 2% waste and was almost paid back with interest last i read about it.
          President Obama campaigned on raising rates for top earners and cutting taxes for everyone else. He won. That means his argument won. I’m guessing you don’t make over 250k per year, so your taxes will go down.

          • Emilio Cerra Sr.

            EEKman — NOBODYs taxes will go down under any of the scenarios that either side has proposed during the fiscal cliff “negotiations”. The best that will happen is that your tax rates will stay where they were under the Bush tax cuts.
            The fact that you don’t know that (or chose to ignore it) makes suspect everything else you’ve said so far. For example, the same people that elected the president with his “tax the rich” plan ALSO reelected the Republicans to block him in the House of Representatives. Does that election result also count, or only the one you like?

          • EEKman

            Come on Emilio – The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year, so something has to be done to keep them at the current rates. By your party not willing to agree on something, the rates will go up automatically for everyone. You’re arguing semantics.

            More people voted for democrats in house races by a substantial amount consistent with the percentage advantage the Dems had in the Presidential and senate races. The only reason the GOP kept their seats is partisan gerrymandering in 2010. So they are not only claiming more political influence than is earned, they will be using that unearned influence to hold everyone hostage to the debt ceiling potentially costing everyone billions more and risking another credit downgrade.

          • CBDenver

            Your claims that GOP only held their seats due to “gerrymandering” is foolish. You obviously want to disenfranchise all conservatives by falsely claiming that their votes are illegitimate. Shame on you.

          • EEKman

            Well if i was doing that, you certainly don’t get to claim outrage because I suggested your votes were illegitimate. The irony is strong in this one.
            I am not suggesting that, i’m stating facts. Facts are facts whether you like them or not. More people as a whole voted for democrats in the house just as more people voted democrat for the president and senate races. Its fact. So be careful when you justify positions because the GOP won the house. You’re going to get that rightly thrown back in your face. The good thing is that it will call attention to election reform, which we badly need. Its not good for any of us if either party has an unfair advantage.

          • CBDenver

            Here is an article on whether or not the stimulus “worked”
            All these studies are flawed in one way or another. It is difficult for even the experts to agree on how to answer the question, much less on the actual answer itself. The bottom line is that the stimulus was intended to be a temporary measure to try and reduce the economic recession. That assumes that the recession was a cyclical rather than a structural phenomenon. Keynesian spending schemes like the stimulus assume a cyclical problem. Those who propose more fundamental changes like entitlement and tax reform assume structural problems exist in the economy. For the latter temporary stimulus programs are like giving a shot of adrenalin to a sick man. It may pep him up temporarily, but soon wears off.

          • EEKman

            Interesting article. According to that, 7 of 9 studies agreed it was at least partially successful with 6 of 9 agreeing that it was successful. 77% agreement is a landslide in political terms. Thanks for the link.

          • 1tootall

            “That means his argument won.”
            MWAHAHAH!! What argument!?? He can’t put two thoughts together without his teleprompter? What argument was that…budget? ZERO. Foreign Policy? ZERO. FAST AND FURIOUS? ZERO? Steal from the successful and give to the losers? Maybe, but those are too many words for him to string together. It is was his intent is/was. And if you and your lackeys are the ones stealing our money, of course you voted for that!! It won’t last for long, and stealing rarely ends well.

      • submandave

        Actually, the “fiscal cliff” was an inevitable result of the Democrats refusing to make the current tax rates the legal standard rather than the practical standard the last time. The Democrats insisted on an expiration date and a mandated return to the Clinton-era rates, poising the Damocles sword of immense tax hikes over the economy. If anything, the hostage taking simile seems much more apt to their tactic.

      • submandave

        And if you truly believe that “Both parties want tax increases[, but] the republicans want to tax everyone [who can’t afford it],” then please explain why the House Republicans passed a bill to keep current rates on everyone (i.e. NO tax increase for ANYONE).

        • EEKman

          President Obama campaigned hard on raising rates for top earners. He won the election on that approach pretty decisively, that means his argument won. That’s how it works, that’s why elections have consequences. You don’t just get to ignore that fact because it goes against your ideology.

          • Jeff McCabe

            pity then that the President doesn’t have unlimited power. I’m guessing the congressmen and Senators who are against tax increases point to their own election as reason also. Curious if you can explain how raising a additional 80 billion a year takes care of that 1.2 trillion deficit every year. Obama can’t. Doesn’t even try.

          • CBDenver

            Are you sure Obama won because voters supported his tax plans?

      • 1tootall

        By definition, (NOT YOURS!) the Tea Party wants a return to Constitutional standards, not a morph of our country as called for by King Barry. The Tea Party wants a reduction in spending and a return to a balanced budget. They have never tried to oppress anyone, unless that person was spitting in the face of Tea Party members at a meeting!! I don’t know what “all recent polls and the results of the election is what the majority of don’t want.” means. Polls consistently show the country wants to stop the ridiculous spending being forced on us by the left and wants to reduce taxes. You must be referring to Union polling…can’t imagine how honest that would be!!!

        • EEKman

          We aren’t going to return to the founding of the country where the government was a shack with a flag on a hill. Its not going to happen. The constitution will forever be interpreted differently by different people. There are many opinions of just what Article 1 section 8 of the constitution means. We may never agree, but we do know that the countries who have the highest standard of living in the world spend much more as a % of GDP on government than we do.

          The tea party doesn’t have any political leverage other than holding the debt ceiling hostage. They lost the election and cant even come up with a coherent message to stop the fiscal cliff. The plan B vote was embarrassing. Mitch McConnell filibustering himself over debt ceiling reform was beyond embarrassing. The tea party all but wrote itself out of the budget negotiations by failing to come together with the more moderate members of your party, so now you get what you get.

          I’m sorry you don’t get that losing a major election means more than just your guy isn’t the president. It means certain arguments have been accepted, and others are rejected, and now its time to implement the ideas that won. You don’t get to pretend that didn’t happen.

          • Jeff McCabe

            ” but we do know that the countries who have the highest standard of
            living in the world spend much more as a % of GDP on government than we
            do.” No we dont. Iraq and Cuba are #1 and #2. You have to get down to #7 before you get to france. And they have real financial problems coming up.

            “I’m sorry you don’t get that losing a major election means more than
            just your guy isn’t the president. It means certain arguments have been accepted, and others are rejected, and now its time to implement the ideas that won.” Actually it means no such thing, and its odd that you think it does. It means we have a president who leads the country and has considerable public influence on lobbying congress to pass bills he likes. However congress is very reluctant to hand over their power to the president just because he won the election. That pesky constitution you feel no one understands. Congress is equal to the executive and judicial branches and I doubt we ever see the day they willingly relinquish their constitutional power to one man. You DO know that they also run for election based on the issues, right?

          • EEKman

            I didn’t say the countries with the highest government spending have the highest standard of living, but the countries ahead of us spend more on government than we do.

            I take your point about the influence of the President, but how can you justify a hard ideological position that is willing to say “I know Obama won the election and 53% of the American people agree with him on increasing tax rates on the highest earners, but we disagree. Our message is, either taxes go up for everyone, or they go up for no one. In my head I hear that in a Mr. Burns voice. I don’t understand how you can grow your party if you’re perceived as the party Of the rich, and for the rich.

          • CBDenver

            I am not sure that all those people who voted for Obama want taxes to go up on the rich. I believe there were other reasons they voted for him. It is silly to assume that any given voter agrees with 100% of what a candidate espouses. But even if what you claim is correct, there is still valid reason to oppose higher taxes on the rich. Taxing the rich more as a means to solve our nation’s debt and deficit problems will not work. Just because a majority of people want to do something that is wrong and destructive doesn’t mean the rest of us have to just let that happen. Our system gives power to the co-equal branches of the government. The president is not king. He does not get to impose his will on everyone just because he won. I voted for conservative candidates to represent me in the House, as did a majority of the people in my district. Why do you insist on nullifying our votes by saying the my Representative should just roll over and do whatever the President proposes?

          • EEKman

            The 53% I quoted was not just people who voted Obama, but a specific poll that asked the specific question about taxes. i don’t have the link handy. Read my last response to you about unearned political influence. There’s a difference between not rolling over for the president and obstruction.

          • CBDenver

            You seem to think that ours is a system where the majority gets to impose their will on the majority without limits. But that is not the case. There was not just one election in 2012. There were hundreds across the country for offices at all levels. The executive branch of the federal government is only one branch of a tripartate, limited government, despite the notion of supremacy of the President that you seem to support. The representatives in the legislative branch represent their constituents who voted for them. If those constitutents want lower spending and no tax increases then that is what those representatives will rightly support. That is the part of the constitution that is not open to interpretation.

          • EEKman

            You seem to think that ours is a system where the minority gets to impose their will on the majority without limits.

            You seem to think its OK for the minority to filibuster everything, even ITSELF, and not even have to speak as to why, thus paying no political price and preventing anything at all from happening. You seem to think that its ok for the party of fiscal responsibility to threaten default on all bills congress already agreed to pay for unless it gets everything it wants despite the majority disagreeing.

          • CBDenver

            Nobody is filibustering anything. The House is attempting to develop a compromise proposal. The White House is unwilling to negotiate in good faith. The president is like you — his attitude is “I won, therefore I can do what ever I want to do”. The conservative House members are not asking to get everything they want, that is what the President is doing. And, no, we are not going to “default on all bills”. That is just a scare tactic used by the Democrats. Funny that this thread is about Hoyer falsely accusing Republicans of being hostage takers when it is actually Democrats who are using “hostage-taking” tactics by saying that if we don’t raise taxes then the US will default on all its debts.

          • 1tootall

            “The constitution will forever be interpreted differently by different people.”

            Really. And who gets to decide whose interpretation is “correct”…the one who is the nastiest and and tries to bully anyone who disagrees the most…like you? No, the Constitution is the foundation for our country; it is the Constitution that the Tea Party wants us to reinstate. The fact that YOU think it can mean anything to anyone, (“living”,”breathing” LOL) means you can assign yourself whatever pseudo-authority you think you should have… as King Barry has done. The plan B was embarrassing to Boehner, not to the Tea Party. Since when does NOT compromising constitute being written “out of the budget negotiations”?? You must be one of the 47% illiterates if you think that’s what happened. Hey, genius, why do you think the vote went the way it did??HUH? It’s because the Tea Party drew the line for the RINOs and their leader, Boehner. The “moderate” members have written their own political death warrants, and will be primaried in the next cycle.

            We did not lose the House, and Barry lost 9 million votes from the last election. (Now THAT is a real vote of confidence!!) That, in any context, is barely winning, not a landslide. Your lackeys on the left never understood an “argument” in any case. You whine and complain and want us all to go back to the good ol days of the 30s. No one pretends anything didn’t happen. And as for YOUR guy in the White House, well, let’s just say the 2nd terms don’t go all that well for any U.S. president. I’m guessing it may be worse for the one who would be “king”. Just sayin’…. (Bengazi, Fast and Furious, Cap and Trade, Obamacare, Hurricane Sandy and FEMA, Lisa Jackson, Eric Holder, etc., etc.) Yeah, YOUR guy is a real stand up….

      • PennyRobinsonFanClub

        Ignorant dooshbagger.

        • EEKman

          Flawless argument, the way you misspelled douchebagger really drove the point home. You’re a political genius. Run for office.

      • BajaLaJolla

        Garbage! And you know it.

        The Tea Party Americans understand the problem is SPENDING, not the taxes. One can only wonder if you are a paid troll of George Soros…

        • EEKman

          You cant just say spending is a problem without being specific. Spending is another word for “government doing things” If you want the government to do less things, then specify what things you want to cut, and be prepared to pay the political price for it.

          • MarkD

            Department of Education for openers. Would you like more?

          • EEKman

            Its nice that you’re a Ron Paul fan.
            Call up your rep and say “Good news! we can fix the fiscal cliff! Just close the dept of Education! And while you’re at it close the Dept of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. Say goodbye to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Management, Ocean Energy Management and Reclamation! Adios Interior Museum and National Park Service! Take a hike, US Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Geological Survey! So long Oak Ridge Laboratory, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia Labs, and Pantex. Who needs you? Kiss off National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of Environmental Management! Tough luck National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of the Census, US Patent and Trademark Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and National Weather Service! Get lost National Institute for Literacy, Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools!

            See if you can push that through politically by Jan 3rd. Id be the first to join your Presidential campaign.

          • CBDenver

            Here is a detailed plan to reduce debt, cut spending, and enhance the economy. Here are some of the key take-aways:

            “Discretionary Spending Cuts Alone Are Not an Adequate Substitute for Entitlement Reform”

            “Without Reforms, Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues”

            “Discretionary spending should be returned to 2008 levels”

            “The tax system should be simplified. Make economic growth the goal of the tax system.”

          • Keith Fletcher

            So your plan is better? Deficits today, Deficits tomorrow, Deficits forever! It’s the Dimocrate way! By God you clowns are bad at math.

          • richard40

            How about going back to Clinton era spending levels of 18% of GDP (I dont recall anybody starving back then) instead of todays incredibly bloated 25% of GDP. Yes any cuts could hurt, but going broke like Greece will hurt more.

  • don3ham

    House GOP is acting like House has passed legislation already and is waiting for the Senate’s dictator to act.

  • iconoclast

    Caring about what Democrats say is equivalent to caring about what a schizophrenic homeless drunk says. Neither make much sense at all and both are consumed with hatred.

  • Joseph Phillips

    If anyone is being held hostage it’s the future generations. Hey Dems, quit spending money we don’t have!

  • gracepmc

    Hoyer knew exactly what he was saying. Standard leftist inflammatory fare.

  • $14525937

    because asking the federal government to cut any spending by even the smallest amount is exactly like shooting a child.

    • PennyRobinsonFanClub

      Or rolling Granny over the edge in her wheelchair.

      • $14525937

        no, that overwrought metaphor is reserved for those who want to keep medicare as it is today, and are willing to watch it go insolvent in less than 12 years, as is predicted. actually for those people, perhaps it isn’t overwrought.

  • 1tootall

    Actually, they are like the twins a few years ago in Los Angeles who killed their parents and then wanted sympathy because they had become orphans. The left has killed our economy and Constitution, and now they want sympathy. Go figure.

  • BajaLaJolla

    Hoyer is proof that Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Fascism” is not just a history of modern liberalism.

  • jayhill1947

    Steny Hoyer is an ass-clam!!!

  • xbox361

    it’s the psychological defense called projection. accuse your enemies of your own unconscious failing. Obama’s favorite.

  • richard40

    A bit ironic that repubs are the intransagent hostage takers, when they have already made it clear that they would agree to the plan that Obama himself proposed in his own campaign, 800B in tax hikes balanced by 2.4 B in spending cuts. The reason the negociations have failed is Obama has gone back on HIS OWN CAMPAIGN PLEDGE, and now has doubled his revenue demands, to 1.6B, and proposed less than 1/3 of his own campaign proposed spending cuts (less than 1T instead of the 2.4T his own camapign called for).
    So could all you dem spinners please tell me, why are the repubs the bad guys here, when all they want is for Obama to agree to what Obama himself proposed in his own campaign, 800B in new revenue, balanced out by 2.4T in new spending cuts.