Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

. 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by 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...