In her last press conference as speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi said this...

"Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go. Unfortunately, that will be changed now. "

Deficit reduction has been the mantra of this Congress? During her 4 years as speaker, the federal deficit increased by $5 trillion. She added FOUR BILLION DOLLARS A DAY to the deficit, and then she stands there with a straight face and says that deficit reduction was her mantra?

She is either a liar, or she is a lunatic. There is no third option. This woman keeps getting elected every 2 years, and at one point was third in line for the presidency. This is one of the leaders of the liberal movement.

Yep, those liberal Democrats are very fiscally responsible. Next, they'll claim to be the champions of the unborn...

How will Spence come to her rescue, I wonder?

Pay as you go? Lolz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim -
a brief view into my journey from liberal (or so I thought) to conservative.
Living in San Francisco, Im in my mid 20s. Most of my friends are dead head, hippy types. One Saturday they're on their way to a protest, i was hanging at their house. they were goign to protest the imprisonment of mumia jamal, a rasta type guy arested for shooting a cop. I pressed them on why he should be released. They go round and round about racism, blah, blah, blah. But I kept asking did he or didnt he shoot a cop? Rounds and rounds of nonsense and no one could explain if he did or didnt shoot a cop. My point is that this type of self inflated rightousness is what makes true liberals thrive. They have a battle that most are too ignorant to understand. Pelosi is in that vein.

Jim -
a brief view into my journey from liberal (or so I thought) to conservative.
Living in San Francisco, Im in my mid 20s. Most of my friends are dead head, hippy types. One Saturday they're on their way to a protest, i was hanging at their house. they were goign to protest the imprisonment of mumia jamal, a rasta type guy arested for shooting a cop. I pressed them on why he should be released. They go round and round about racism, blah, blah, blah. But I kept asking did he or didnt he shoot a cop? Rounds and rounds of nonsense and no one could explain if he did or didnt shoot a cop. My point is that this type of self inflated rightousness is what makes true liberals thrive. They have a battle that most are too ignorant to understand. Pelosi is in that vein.

You are right of course, and that's why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. There is no other explanation.

I know all about Abu Mumia Jamal. I actually met Ed Asner once, and he is one of those Hollywood celebrities who thinks Mumia Jamal should be freed and made a hero. I asked the fat slob if he knew of any exculpatory evidence, or any issues of unfairness during the trial, and he couldn't think of anything. He was committed to the cause of freeing Abu Jamal, yet he had no idea why he should be behind that cause.

Abu Jamal didn't just shoot a cop, he killed a cop. In France, I swear to God, they made him (Abu Jamal) an honorary citizen. They bestowed an honor on a convicted cop-killer.

This is why I get nasty in some of these posts, I have no patience for these people anymore. I know some honest, fair, thoughtful liberals, but not many. Most liberals I know are of the brainwashed, thoughtless, intellectually dishonest type (you almost need to fit that description to buy into that agenda), completely unable to articulate why their ideas are better than conservative ideas, yet more than willing to attack conservatives...

crazy

There are crazy right wingers as well..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are crazy right wingers as well..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Crazy doesn't have a party affiliation. It runs ramant through society.

Why can't Pelosi be both a lunatic and a liar? I hate having to make tough decisions like having to pick just one thing when both options are fitting.

There are crazy right wingers as well..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

true. But I think the crazy left is more mainstream, if that makes sense. I dont know any bible thumping right wingers but know plenty of looney lefties. Might just be cuz I live in MA.

true. But I think the crazy left is more mainstream, if that makes sense. I dont know any bible thumping right wingers but know plenty of looney lefties. Might just be cuz I live in MA.

Bingo.
I spent a summer in western Virgina as an undegrad, and the ratio was flipped the otherway.

true. But I think the crazy left is more mainstream, if that makes sense. I dont know any bible thumping right wingers but know plenty of looney lefties. Might just be cuz I live in MA.

As hound said... Go south and go to the Midwest.
Git er done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are crazy right wingers as well..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree, I never said that conservatives have a monopoly on virtue.

But someone (Spence, RIRockhound) please tell me when one of the top 5 conservative politicians in the country, said something that obviously crazy and false. I can't think of anything, I just cannot. If John Boehner had a press conference and said "affirmative action is the mantra of the republican party", he would correctly be labeled as a lunatic and he would be rightly expelled from public service.

Some may say Bush was that wrong when he concluded that Iraq had WMD's, but a LOT of people agreed with Bush at that time. No one on the planet earth believes that there is a shred of truth to what Pelosi said. She is truly bizarre, and I submit that someone that disconnected from reality would not get elected speaker of the house as a republican.

Who will be the next Democratic speaker? John Hinkley?

As hound said... Go south and go to the Midwest.
Git er done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that and the awesome barbecue, I may just do it!

If someone pledges to eliminate 100 billion from this year's budget are they a lunitic, a liar or just disconnected from reality?

If someone pledges to eliminate 100 billion from this year's budget are they a lunitic, a liar or just disconnected from reality?

They're someone that will move this country in the right direction. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step.

If someone pledges to eliminate 100 billion from this year's budget are they a lunitic, a liar or just disconnected from reality?

None of the above. Why?

I think the third choice would be BOTH!

can't be both ...thats way to complex a title for her

she's a lying lunatic

There are crazy right wingers as well..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very true. Now they will be front and center and Pelosi won't be.

In the end - what about we the people? We vote and can't ever seem to get what we want or need. Too many special interests seem to influence all these polititcians.

Everyone knows we have Deficit issues and Economic issues and the new congress is targeting health insurance like the old congress did.

Why not cut the corporate tax and bring some jobs back to the USA?

None of the above. Why?

Well the Repubs. have 360 days to reduce this year's budget by the $100 billion that I heard they proposed. If not, then they'd have to be one of the 3 right? I think that they have already suggested $30 million - still a ways to go.

Why not cut the corporate tax and bring some jobs back to the USA?

Excellent Idea in theory
but the corporate greed will prevail

Well the Repubs. have 360 days to reduce this year's budget by the $100 billion that I heard they proposed. If not, then they'd have to be one of the 3 right? I think that they have already suggested $30 million - still a ways to go.

If the GOP says they'll try to reduce the deficit, and they try but Obama vetoes all legislation (for example) they wouldn't be any of those things.

If the GOP votes repeatedly to increase the deficit, and they still claim that their mantra was lowering the deficit, then they are one of the above. Pelosi is inarguably in one of those buckets. Time will tell if the GOP is any better. I don't see how they could be worse.

So Paul, you responded to my query by criticizing the GOP on their very first day. How about giving them a chance? And what do you say about Pelosi?

Well the Repubs. have 360 days to reduce this year's budget by the $100 billion that I heard they proposed. If not, then they'd have to be one of the 3 right? I think that they have already suggested $30 million - still a ways to go.


Ya, what gives, they've already been in control of the House, for what 7 hours now.

She's a nutjob. but most of them are so detached from their constituency that they have no clue what people really want.

Let them spend more time back home and have friggin web conferences.

JohnnyD can get the biz to set them up.

JohnnyD can get the biz to set them up.
:rotflmao::rotflmao:

She's a nutjob. but most of them are so detached from their constituency that they have no clue what people really want.
While I'm not a fan of her personally, one can't deny that on paper she's been a very effective Speaker.

And if you'd care to compare her to her peers, the other note worthy Speakers in the past few administrations, you have Tom Delay who was just convicted of money laundering in a Federal court and Newt Gingrich who was fined $300,000 and reprimanded for violating House Rules.

JUST IN CASE ANY OF YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN :hihi:

What first struct me about Jim's post was that it mentioned "deficit" rather than "debt". I did a quick Google and noticed that most of the posts contained this error.

It did find it quite ironic that people who purport to be so fiscally minded wouldn't notice and correct this simple mistake.

While I'd say it was a silly comment to make, I do remember reading number of stories about Dems in the House pushing pay as you go. Not that they were very effective at actually implementing it.

Let's be real though and remember that the biggest reason we have a gigantic deficit today is because of bloated Bush spending that isn't being funded because of tax revenue short falls from the recession.

Obama has most certainly added to the problem (although when you take the Stimulus out of the equation not really that much, and I'd wager a months pay that McCain as President would have done exactly the same thing) but some reviews even by Harvard Business Review have limited the exposure by Obama to only about 15%.

The Net: Deficit (and debt) are a huge issue and Pelosi's comment was stupid and probably meant to provoke. But I don't think she's crazy and our balance sheet needs to be put in perspective.

The new House is going to have a bitch of a time actually following through on their promises. They still have to work with the Senate and Obama and there's still a cashflow issue at the IRS.

-spence

Let's be real though and remember that the biggest reason we have a gigantic deficit today is because of bloated Bush spending that isn't being funded because of tax revenue short falls from the recession.

-spence

Isn't that the beauty of tax revenue shortfalls? There is no money to fund bloated spending. Doesn't this argue for spending cuts rather than tax increases as the method to reduce the deficit? Raising taxes will just pay for bloated spending. Parkinson's second law--expenditures always rise to meet income.

Isn't that the beauty of tax revenue shortfalls? There is no money to fund bloated spending. Doesn't this argue for spending cuts rather than tax increases as the method to reduce the deficit? Raising taxes will just pay for bloated spending. Parkinson's second law--expenditures always rise to meet income.
I think this is true to a point, but am not sure the problem of the national debt can be solved with spending cuts alone over the next decade. This certainly seemed to be the opinion of the debt commission who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do (one would hope).

That being said, I do see wisdom in the Conservative idea that if the money is there it will get spent. This is as true as extra cash in your pocket or that tub of ice cream in the freezer (i.e. human nature). The key is restraint, and why I think most people don't trust either party, they're looking for responsibility which has been in short supply regardless of who's in charge of the pocket book.

-spence

Being from the area where Nancy grew up and knowing the family (and unfortunately Nancy) pretty well I can say that she is not crazy. She is, however, a part of the political machine in Maryland that, like the Kennedy family in Mass, has a stranglehold for years and maintains close ties. Nancy is the daughter of Tommy D'Alesandro, Jr. (Former Congressman) and brother of Tommy the 3rd. Both Tommy's were former mayors of Baltimore and powerful within the MD Democratic party. When Nancy lost the speaker's position Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was in line to become the Minotrity Leader. However, there was some sort of a deal cut to keep Nancy as Leader and put Steny as the Whip.

Crazy? No. Sly like a fox and out of touch? Yes.

Spence -

"And if you'd care to compare her to her peers..."

Ah, the classic idiot (and Spence, you are now an undeniable idiot) response to proof that their heroes are in fact liars...you justify their bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you point to bad behavior on the other side. That tactic would only have merit (and it most definitely has no merit) if I claimed that the GOP never had any lapses. Since I never said any such thing, Spence's point has no relevence whatsoever.

My point, Spence, is that we need a new breed of politician. I'm an independent, I say throw 'em all out and get people in there who truly see themselves as public servants.

Spence, you are the most predictable, boring, unoriginal thinker on this board. Everyone here knows exactly what you're going to say before you say it.

"I do remember reading number of stories about Dems in the House pushing pay as you go. Not that they were very effective at actually implementing it."

During the 4 years the Dems controlled the legislature, they added $5 trillion to the debt. Spence sums that up by saying they "weren't effective" at pay-as-you-go. That's like saying the maiden voyage of the Titanic "wasn't effective" at iceberg avoidance, but other than that, the voyage was a success.

"the biggest reason we have a gigantic deficit today is because of bloated Bush spending that isn't being funded because of tax revenue short falls from the recession. "

Ah, blame Bush. Spence, how many more years will you blame Bush for everything, before you conclude that dog don't hunt no more? Spence, even IF what you say is true (that most of the debt is a result of Bush's actions, not Obama's), please remember that Obama has only been in office 2 years. Did Bush add as much to the debt in any 2 year-period as Obama has in the last 2 years? I dodn't know, and I'm not sure I particluarly care. The issue in this post is the lunacy involved in Pelosi suggesting that deficit reduction has been her mantra.

"Obama has most certainly added to the problem (although when you take the Stimulus out of the equation not really that much,"

Spence, the cost of the healthcare legislation doesn't kick in for a few more years...nice dodge there. Here is what Spence is saying..."if you ignore all the money that Obama has actually spent, then he really hasn't spent that much..."

"I don't think she's crazy"

Then do you think she's a liar?? If she's not crazy, and she's not a liar, how could she claim that deficit reduction has been their mantra?

"The new House is going to have a bitch of a time actually following through on their promises. They still have to work with the Senate and Obama "

Oh, I see. And if the Democrats (Obama and in the Senate) block what the House republicans try to do, then will you, Spence, call them the party of "no"?

Spence, you don't need to reply to any of my posts anymore. Whatever I post, I'll assume your response is either...

(1) Bush stole the election!

(2) No blood for oil!

(3) it's Bush's fault!

(4) maybe the Democrats are bad, but the Republicans are worse!

Since everything you say is an elaboration on one of those points, you need not bother.

they're looking for responsibility which has been in short supply regardless of who's in charge of the pocket book.

-spence

And Spence, look up WHICH PARTY has controlled the purse strings (meaning, which party controlled the legislature, not the White House) since January 2006.

Isn't that the beauty of tax revenue shortfalls? There is no money to fund bloated spending. Doesn't this argue for spending cuts rather than tax increases as the method to reduce the deficit? Raising taxes will just pay for bloated spending. Parkinson's second law--expenditures always rise to meet income.

Exactly. But when liberals confront this issue, they spend 99% of their time talking about increasing revenue (tax hikes) and almost no time talking about menaingful cuts. Libs ain't about to statr saying "no" to labor unions, for example. And caving in to public labor union demands is a huge reason why most states are in dire financial shape.

As Gov Christie in NJ says, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If a 30 year-old NBA star is bankrupt, his problem isn't that he doesn't make enough money. His problem is that he needs to get a grip on his spending. Politicians are in the same boat...

If the GOP says they'll try to reduce the deficit, and they try but Obama vetoes all legislation (for example) they wouldn't be any of those things.



If Obama vetoes all legislation, then the GOP having promised to reduce this year's budget is disconnected from reality. Why make a promise you can't keep? How did they expect to keep their promise? I know Obama will veto all legislation (just as I know this year's budget won't be lowered $100 billion). You can't promise you'll do something if there is no way that it will happen.

If they're able to lower the budget what they stated - good for them for accomplishing what they promised and let them be rewarded for that.

I don't want any legislators (Pelosi or the GOP) promising/stating anything that won't happen or they can't do. That is not party dependent - they're all the same.

If Obama vetoes all legislation, then the GOP having promised to reduce this year's budget is disconnected from reality. Why make a promise you can't keep? How did they expect to keep their promise? I know Obama will veto all legislation (just as I know this year's budget won't be lowered $100 billion). You can't promise you'll do something if there is no way that it will happen.

If they're able to lower the budget what they stated - good for them for accomplishing what they promised and let them be rewarded for that.

I don't want any legislators (Pelosi or the GOP) promising/stating anything that won't happen or they can't do. That is not party dependent - they're all the same.

Paul S, you and I are talking about 2 very different things, and I htink you know that.

You are describing a situation where a party runs on a platform, honestly tries to implement that platform, and gets blocked by the other party.

That is NOT REMOTELY analagous to what Pelosi did. She took one radical course of action (insane spending) and then AFTER THE FACT, claimed that she did the exact opposite.

(1) The GOP has made a promise. Time will tell if they can keep it, and if they don't, they should be honest about why.

(2) Pelosi is claiming that she did the opposite of what she actualy did.

You're comparing those 2 things. A child knows they are different.

I know Obama will veto all legislation (just as I know this year's budget won't be lowered $100 billion). You can't promise you'll do something if there is no way that it will happen.
I highly doubt that's the case. Obama still seeks to further his agenda and the interests of the American people. A stagnant government will produce none of this and could be quite disruptive.

More likely it will mean negotiation. The House isn't going to be let to run rampant, if they don't produce bi-partisan legislation it's not going to get through the Senate.

-spence

Since everything you say is an elaboration on one of those points, you need not bother.
I'll be more than happy to oblige, have a nice season.

-spence

BEST picture I seen in years.

http://www.drudgereport.com/hr.jpg

Now if they can just get the other jackbag out of there we'd be all set :spam:

just saw that sign in half lengthwise

prolly pay $500.00 for a replacement

TOILET SEATS ARE $10K

THAT IS EASILY A $50K SIGN

just saw that sign in half lengthwise

prolly pay $500.00 for a replacement

[QUOTE=stcroixman;824441]Very true. Now they will be front and center and Pelosi won't be.

InQUOTE]

you really think Boehner is as nutty (on the right) as Pelosi is left?

Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?

BOTH! :)

Liar

. Obama still seeks to further his agenda and the interests of the American people. -spence

you never cease to amuse me. Obama seeks to further the interests of SOME american people. He has been very outspoken about NOT furthering the interests of -
1. successful people who do not rely on government support
2. People making over 200K per year and even more damaging, FAMILILES making 250k per year
3. American citizens who compete for jobs with illegal aliens

He is working very hard to further the interests of those that rely on the government.

You're comparing those 2 things. A child knows they are different.

So you think I'm comparing 2 different things and I'm a "child"?

Paul, hurry up, call him "classy" !

So you think I'm comparing 2 different things and I'm a "child"?

No. I'm saying that you're comparing 2 things that are extremely different.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting an equivalence between...

(1) House republicans, who have been in occice 2 days, are pledging to reduce the debt.

(2) Nancy Pelosi, after increasing the debt by $5 trillion, says that debt reduction was her mantra.

The second thing is an irrefutable lie. As for the 1st thing, the GOP hasn't had time to do anything yet, so we don't know if they are being honest. In other words, there is no evidence (yet) that Boehner lied about reducing the debt. There is insurmountable evidence that Pelosi lied.

As I said, you seem to be comparing two very different things. You're comparing an obvious liar with someone who may or may not be proven to be a liar. Or did I misunderstand your post, which is quite possible?

you never cease to amuse me. Obama seeks to further the interests of SOME american people. He has been very outspoken about NOT furthering the interests of -
1. successful people who do not rely on government support
2. People making over 200K per year and even more damaging, FAMILILES making 250k per year
3. American citizens who compete for jobs with illegal aliens

He is working very hard to further the interests of those that rely on the government.
Jim, think a little about this. I said his "agenda" and the "interests" of the people. There are little things like national defense that I think we'd all agree are important. Do you think Obama will let the Afghanistan war funding dry up because the House wants to cut some domestic program? Not likely...they'll work out a deal.

Perhaps you need to take a breather before responding to posts.

-spence

I highly doubt that's the case. Obama still seeks to further his agenda and the interests of the American people.

-spence

Spence, my opinion is that it appears Obama's agenda is very different than the interests of the American people (and I’m not including the free loaders of this great country as the American people). He doesn't seem to know the interests of the American people...

So you think I'm comparing 2 different things and I'm a "child"?

Yeah, I was surprised the "Condescension Police" didn't jump all over that....I've seen them bust other people's balls for less. :hihi:

I think this is true to a point, but am not sure the problem of the national debt can be solved with spending cuts alone over the next decade. This certainly seemed to be the opinion of the debt commission who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do (one would hope).

When I spoke of no money to fund bloated spending and not raising taxes to create that condition, I specifically referred to it as an argument for cutting spending rather than raising taxes as the best way to reduce the DEFICIT. As you said, most people interchange or confuse DEBT and DEFICIT. However, since you mention it, the debt certainly won't be reduced, not only over the next ten years, but ever, if the budget is constantly in deficit. The problem with raising taxes to eliminate the deficit, even if it is only an added measure in tandem with reduced spending, is, as we both agree, the incoming revenue will be spent. What's more, if not even worse, the "economy" is not a static universe. It is dynamic and reacts to taxation, usually in a negative way as taxes rise. So you may well have less income with higher taxes as the "economy" shrinks. And, by trying to "stimulate" the "economy" with an influx of government deficit spending and borrowing weakens the dollar and deflates the value of people's savings and property, which in turn, can lead to a decrease in government revenue while increasing the debt. It's a dog not only chasing its tail but eating it. The only way to stop the beast is to starve it. Put it on a crash diet of no goodies--only what is essential. The Federal Government must relinquish the mass of programs that it has, unconstitutionally IMHO, stolen from the people. Let us be more and more responsible, and let the Federales do only what the Constitution allows. Of course, that cat is out of the bag, and it may never be put back.

That being said, I do see wisdom in the Conservative idea that if the money is there it will get spent. This is as true as extra cash in your pocket or that tub of ice cream in the freezer (i.e. human nature). The key is restraint, and why I think most people don't trust either party, they're looking for responsibility which has been in short supply regardless of who's in charge of the pocket book.

-spence

Let's keep voting them out till they get the message.

Paul, hurry up, call him "classy" !

you know classy, right? LOL

As I said, you seem to be comparing two very different things. You're comparing an obvious liar with someone who may or may not be proven to be a liar. Or did I misunderstand your post, which is quite possible?

what I said in previous posts is that if the Repub. don't reduce the budget this year then they'd have to be 1 of the 3 you mentioned. I also said that if they do keep their promise, so be it and let them be rewarded for keeping it. I don't think they'll do it, but we'll see. There is no difference in my mind b/t the 2 parties and I don't think many people here recognize that.

there are INCREDIBLE ideological differences.

BEST picture I seen in years.

http://www.drudgereport.com/hr.jpg

Now if they can just get the other jackbag out of there we'd be all set :spam:


LOL, TWO govt. employees to take down a 3 ft 2 screw sign.
Wonder what the salaries, benes, retirement and screw gun cost us?

That about says it all. :smash:

what I said in previous posts is that if the Repub. don't reduce the budget this year then they'd have to be 1 of the 3 you mentioned. I also said that if they do keep their promise, so be it and let them be rewarded for keeping it. I don't think they'll do it, but we'll see. There is no difference in my mind b/t the 2 parties and I don't think many people here recognize that.

on our way!

Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates staged a pre-emptive attack Thursday in Washington's looming budget battles, announcing cuts of $78 billion to the U.S. military and defense department, including reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

In addition, Gates said the Army, Navy and Air Force had found $100 billion of savings that they would retain, allowing them to continue developing major weapons and modernizing their forces over the next five years.

"These reform efforts, followed through to completion, will make it possible to protect the U.S. military's size, reach and fighting strength despite a declining rate of growth and eventual flattening of the defense budget over the next five years," Gates said at the start of a lengthy opening statement at the Pentagon.

Under the Gates plan, the Marine Corps would slash 15,000 to 20,000 people, a 10% reduction. The Army would shrink by 27,000 active duty personnel, 4% cut, on top of an already planned reduction of 22,000 -- for a total of 49,000 fewer soldiers.

LOL, TWO govt. employees to take down a 3 ft 2 screw sign.
Wonder what the salaries, benes, retirement and screw gun cost us?

That about says it all. :smash:
It's called a Union work. Probably had a mandatory break after the first screw came out and got hazard pay for needing to use a step ladder.

there are INCREDIBLE ideological differences.

sorry, I thought the discussion was about their honesty.

Good for Gates. Our military budget is too large. Politicians should stop telling the military what weapon systems they need. Let the military decide what they need based on the threat and not on trying to keep $s in certain districts.

LOL, TWO govt. employees to take down a 3 ft 2 screw sign.
Wonder what the salaries, benes, retirement and screw gun cost us?


Seems to me there is a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery with several people putting up one small flag...sometimes good things take multiple people to make sure it is done!

I'd be happy to give you my number so I can ignore your call and you can get an idea what slashing the government employee rolls will be like...not that there isn't excess...just don't paint everyone with that brush...we don't come on here and claim that you are just saying that because you didn't get your check...

I heard she is going to pose topless in AARP magazine. She has great hooters.

Imagine what the GD sign cost in the first place. Pity the fool who scrathes it taking it down.

She has great hooters.

I agree. She is almost 70 I think I wonder what she looked like at 30?

She has great hooters.

I agree. She is almost 70 I think I wonder what she looked like at 30?

In the words of Clemenza, Keep the hooters lose the head.