Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?

[PaulS]

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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[FishermanTim]

I think the third choice would be BOTH!

[Raven]

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

she's a lying lunatic

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[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"?

[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.

[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...

[justplugit]

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.

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

[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.

[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.