Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?

[striperman36]

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]

Originally Posted by striperman36

JohnnyD can get the biz to set them up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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...

[Jim in CT]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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