Nancy Pelosi has orgasms every time she thinks about being the Speaker of the House. She is poised to take over and pick a nice big, plush office so that she can clean up after the mess the Republicans made, or so she thinks. San Fran Nan is a lefty lunatic who wants to run in with a 100 hour plan to throw up a bunch of liberal programs that she believes will make us a better country. Unfortunately, the things that the donks, led by Pelosi, will do will lead us into trouble, possibly a recession. The unfortunate part is, this grand scheme will happen on the watch of Bush so in 2008 they will blame everything on him.
Pelosi is having the drapes made, has selected the carpet, and her new desk. On a side note, why is it they do all this each time they have a turn over? It is a huge waste of tax dollars because they can all just get an office and stay in that office. Well, I guess they don't care because, as the President has pointed out, the Democrats will raise taxes. Pelosi has said that in her grand plan once she takes control, a control she hopes is with a veto proof majority. A veto proof majority is a recipe for disaster as the legislature in Maryland has shown time and again. Maryland is recognized as having the worst run government and it has to do with the veto proof Democratic majority. Robert Ehrlich has vetoed a number of items only to have them over ridden. About seven of the items, in the last year, have been ruled unconstitutional (per Maryland's Constitution).
Here are a few of the items San Fran wants to do:
All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
Article comments
1 - Michael J. West
Well! It's refreshing to see an article on Blogcritics that doesn't even TRY to deal with facts, reason, logic, sourced information, or anything other than exaggeration, ad hominem, wild and rampant speculation, and plain old unfounded opinion.
Throw in a few puns on proper names, and I'd swear Rush Limbaugh wrote this article.
2 - Michael J. West
Oh, I'm sorry. I hadn't realized till I read your bio that you were a talk-show host. I had no reason to expect reason or facts.
3 - Big Dog
So Mike,
You derided these items by doing the exact same thing. Stop drinking, you can not afford to lose the brain cells.
Read the article. The quotes are from Nan herself. If you have problems, get someone who did not go to public school to help you.
I lived through most of the 40 years the donks were in charge. They were miserable and if you would like to know about these things you can look them up. It would be refreshing to have a Blogcritic liberal who actually read and researched before attacking without foundation.
4 - Arch Conservative
Big Dog
I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your posts as they provide a little balance to the vile bile coming from moonbats like Adam Ash and Realists day in and day out.
Despite the fact that many around here are not big fans of logic, reason, or objectivity you're posts are read and appreciated by others.
Kudos to you Big Dog!
5 - JP
This is the poorest excuse for reason that I've seen on this site in quite a while. Not even worth debating on "facts," as there aren't any here.
6 - Lumpy
I don't particularly agree with your politics but I do find Pelosi repugnant and I found the article amusing and on taeget.
7 - Alec
Bush and his cronies (some of whom are Democrats, and not all of whom are Republicans) believe with their hearts and souls in oligarchy and have been moving America towards this goal relentlessly. They believe that every social and economic program since FDR has been an error which must be corrected. If they succeed, the U.S. will resemble the regimes that Bush most admires â€" Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the old pre-Chavez Venezuela, all with a small wealthy upper class, a sliver of a managerial middle class, and a huge peasant class.
Your taxes have already been increased by expanding deficits, increased government spending, and pointless government pork programs. All under Bush, and all ignored because of the “war on terror.” This all has to be paid for eventually, and rising tax revenues have not made a dent. Real wages have declined by every reasonable measure, while Bush pointedly ignores this fact by pointing to the rising stock market. Meanwhile Bush and his Wall Street Journal buddies have consistently pushed for open borders, claiming that illegal immigrants are just hard working folks who do the jobs that Americans won’t do (odd, then that illegals make up about 24% of the construction industry and have moved away from the agricultural work that many previously performed). Meanwhile, employers are closely monitoring the Wal Mart formula for success â€" lower wages, no benefits, more part time jobs.
Bush has also pulled off a three-card monte style con, convincing the rubes that being “pro-business” is the same thing as being pro free-markets. But truly free markets recognize the legitimate interests of workers and consumers, not just business owners. And Bush has neatly played evangelicals for suckers, who simply will not believe that someone who has been born again is capable of dishonesty. Can you say “Enron executives?” I knew you could.
Pelosi is wealthy. Big Whoop. Bush wasn’t born in a log cabin, and before he bought his photo-op Crawford ranch, he lived in a gated community in a very upscale Texas neighborhood.
Still, we are between a rock and a hard place. Too many Democrats are infantile socialists who believe in foolishness like targeted tax cuts and who believe that Bill Clinton’s moderate (and successful) policies betrayed basic party principles.
Neither party has a clue as to how to resolve the Iraq conflict. Promising to hunt down and kill all the terrorists isn’t necessarily a big threat to an adversary that eagerly embraces martyrdom. On the other hand, Democrats seem fixated on pulling troops out, but have not offered any practical suggestions for stabilizing a region torn apart by Bush’s ill-conceived neo-con wet dream for bringing democracy to Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries (odd that neither of our big allies, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan practice democracy and are also hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism).
8 - Scott
I, for one, hope we do "cut and run." It would save us a hell of a lot of money that we could invest domestically.
9 - Dave Nalle
Scott, why would you want to get out of Iraq and then waste the money on gratuitous domestic spending where we already waste billions of dollars every year on completely unnecessary and in often cases destructive programs?
Dave
10 - Michael J. West
I read the article twice before I commented the first time. I just read it twice more. I'm still looking for factual assertions that you can actually back up.
The quotes you mention contain one incriminating statement: "I'll have any suite I want." That's the worst you've got on her: that she is looking forward to have her choice of office suites.
Among statements you make that have absolutely no basis in anything but your own opinion and/or speculation:
"Unfortunately, the things that the donks, led by Pelosi, will do will lead us into trouble, possibly a recession. The unfortunate part is, this grand scheme will happen on the watch of Bush so in 2008 they will blame everything on him."
"Pelosi is having the drapes made, has selected the carpet, and her new desk."
"A veto proof majority is a recipe for disaster as the legislature in Maryland has shown time and again. Maryland is recognized as having the worst run government and it has to do with the veto proof Democratic majority."
"If they want to pay as they go, those of us who work and pay taxes will end up paying more so that they can continue to waste money on bridges in Alaska and buildings named after Robert Byrd in West Virginia."
"They are wealthy and they do not know what it is like to live within one's means or to be on a budget. They do not know because they spend our money like drunken sailors (with apologies to sailors for mentioning them in the same light as Congress)."
"If the donks win and Pelosi is in charge she will find a way to cut and run. The Democrats will push for cowardice as they have done in the past. They will ruin this country and embolden our enemies through cowardice and inaction just as their savior Bill Clinton did. We got 9/11 because of Democratic inaction and weakness and Pelosi will make sure we get it again."
"For Pelosi, this is all about power. She is beaming at the idea of getting "any suite she wants." She wants to push around the Republicans and the American people with her own brand of liberalism. She will continue to push a liberal agenda and hike our taxes. It is also about vengence. She wants to impeach President Bush, ostensibly for the war but in reality as retribution for the impeachment of Clinton."
"National Defense is a low priority for the Democrats and they have shown time and again that they are unable to protect our citizens."
11 - Scott
"Scott, why would you want to get out of Iraq and then waste the money on gratuitous domestic spending where we already waste billions of dollars every year on completely unnecessary and in often cases destructive programs"
Because
12 - Big Dog
Pelosi said they would roll back tax cuts. I claim that will likely lead to recession. Though from 1991, the CATO study is relevant today. If you need more information try searching for the affect of taxes on the economy. If we go into a recession on Bush's watch they will blame it on him. That is my opinion based upon how they have acted on every other thing that goes badly. FWIW, the Right does the same thing to an opposition President. They call that politics, in case you were unclear on it.
Additionally, tax cuts increase revenue to the government. This has been shown time and again throughout history but in case you are in doubt, try reading the latest from our government (notice how it says the economy fuels impressive tax revenues).
Pelosi having drapes made, carpet, and a new desk are metaphors for counting her chickens before they have hatched. Sorry that was not clear to you, perhaps you should read it a fifth time to see if you pick it up.
Maryland has a corrupt legislature that changed rules and to allow it to over ride the governor very easily. They have a long history of corruption and the veto proof majority over rides the governors vetoes only to have them struck down in court as unconstitutional. The legislative body regularly commits acts of fraud and if you follow local news you could see that (I don't know where you are so that might be moot): opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007939
gazette.net/stories/092206/policom152454_31982.shtml Pay particular attention to "That's Where The General Assembly comes in..."
spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10414
As for wasting money, Byrd has a 9% rating by CAGW which is considered taxpayer hostile: cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard
Ted Stevens has a 63% rating which is considered friendly and yet he is a porker with 325 million for Alaska (this is PORK not necessary spending). And since I know you will ask:
cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006Oinkers
Notice, Stevens is a Republican. I included him because they are not blameless when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility. However, when you search the CAGW data base you will see that very few if any Democrats have ratings that are in any of the taxpayer friendly categories. Most Republicans are in in a range considered taxpayer friendly.
You can look at the affect of Democratic inaction on terrorism and how we were attacked. I will not get into that debate because no matter what is said you will say it is wrong or somebody lied blah blah. I will say that Pelosi herself calls the war a mistake but has not espoused the cut and run philosophy because her husband made a lot of money off the war as a contractor. However, many Democrats have made the promise to bring our troops home immediately (which I am sure is hype for very fast) and Pelosi will be in charge of them.
I was hesitant to write this because it does not matter what you are presented with you will say it is a lie, or inaccurate or, God forbid, my opinion (did you miss the part where this was posted as an OPINION piece?). I posted it so that you would at least have something to read and so that others, whether they agree or not, are not influenced by your rhetoric indicating that I do not base anything in fact.
Enjoy
For Alec in #7 who said:
Meanwhile, employers are closely monitoring the Wal Mart formula for success - lower wages, no benefits, more part time jobs.
Wal Mart offers several health benefit plans, a 401K and stock purchase, Dental, and educational benefits. The starting salary in most places is ABOVE the minimum wage. So tell me again how they offer nothing, or are you of the mind a Wal Mart worker has such highly demanded skills he should make 50 or 60 grand a year and be GIVEN every benefit life can offer? Wal Mart has a lot of part time jobs because they are mostly entry level positions. How many people make a career of Wal Mart???? Get real and stay out of the kool aid line. walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/navigate.do?catg=605
You will have to copy and paste the urls. The program would not let me publish that many.
[BIG DOG: [If you're posting links, please follow BC protocol and make them active. This is a reminder of how. There is a limit of three per comment as an anti-spam measure. Thanks. Comments Editor]
13 - Dave Nalle
Wal Mart offers several health benefit plans, a 401K and stock purchase, Dental, and educational benefits. The starting salary in most places is ABOVE the minimum wage.
Actually, the only place where Wal-Mart pays even close to the minimum wage is in those states which have raised the minimum wage on a statewide basis. And even there it starts workers at slightly over the minimum wage. In most places WalMart actually offers starting salaries at least 25% higher than the minimum wage.
Dave
14 - Scott
"How many people make a career of Wal Mart?"
Alot of them, apparently. Read their nametags sometime.
15 - Big Dog
Hey Scott,
I read their name tags. For some reason the 80 year old greeter seems to be retired from another job. The cashiers and stock folks seem to be high school and college kids who are making extra money and somehow I doubt they will be at Wal Mart in five years. There is also a smattering of middle aged people who, I somehow doubt, have been with the company since they started their working lives. There is a difference between a career and a job.
I will certainly agree that there will be some people who stay at Wal Mart forever. They are entitled to do that but does it mean they are supposed to be paid a huge amount of money for what is relatively an unskilled job. Don't get me wrong, it takes skills to do the things there but I don't imagine it takes a great deal of schooling to be able to do most jobs in the place.
You confuse a career with a job, now get back to your career of flipping hamburgers.
16 - Michael J. West
Now, you see, Big Dog, why couldn't you have done that in your article? Now you've provided a foundation for your claims (some of them, anyway). If you'd worked some of those links and perfectly rational claims into your original article, I wouldn't have insisted that you don't work from facts.
As it was, though, your opinions (and yes, I was well aware that it was an opinion article) seemed to come out of the ether and you provided no support for them: essentially it was rhetoric without reason. But comment 12 gives some support for your claims. This I can work with--I still don't necessarily agree, but at least now I know where you're coming from.
I'll address most of your points when I have more time and inclination to go in depth. But a couple of things I'll say now:
If we go into a recession on Bush's watch they will blame it on him. That is my opinion based upon how they have acted on every other thing that goes badly. FWIW, the Right does the same thing to an opposition President. They call that politics, in case you were unclear on it.
Yes, I know they call it politics. And I hate it when both sides do it. It's dishonest and unfair, the traits I'm trying to combat on this site. Why be a party to it?
Pelosi having drapes made, carpet, and a new desk are metaphors for counting her chickens before they have hatched. Sorry that was not clear to you, perhaps you should read it a fifth time to see if you pick it up.
Yes, I got that, too. But, um, you didn't actually provide any support for your suggestion that she was counting her chickens before they were hatched, either. You quote her as saying she'll have "any suite she wants" if she becomes speaker (that's IF, not WHEN, as you'd expect one to say who was counting their chickens). The Yahoo article further quotes her as saying "If the election were held today we'd be successful," which (1) is completely in line with what most of the polls say, and (2) is STILL a hypothetical about the present, not a prediction for the future.
17 - Big Dog
I guess I could argue that making a 100 hour plan about what you will do is counting chickens. Some could argue it is planning but since they would have from November until January they would have plenty of time to make a 100 hour plan. The idea that she has the plan before the election is a bit of chcik counting.
You could still throw the if vs when but that would beg the question, why address it now unless you believe when and not if?
18 - Nancy
Wish I could say good article, BD, but it's your ususal rant with a few quotes thrown in as sops to "fact", most of it being your opinion. Dave does a lot better; you might try studying his example.
I myself dislike Pelosi - she's too extreme even for me, and she's furthermore from the Land of Nuts. How she got where she is over all the other Dems in congress is a mystery to me. Maybe she's got more ambition than the rest, I don't know. I do know most 'liberals' don't care for her either. She doesn't even attack Republicans well, which is her main function, IMO. Hopefully she WON'T become Speaker. If the Dems have any sense, they'll elect someone a lot more palatable & sensible, like Stenny Hoyer of MD. He's not as flashy, but he's also a lot brighter IMO, more stable, less extreme & clownish, & far better at effectively savaging the GOP when savaging is needed, instead of lashing out constantly & wasting his ammo like Pelosi does.
19 - Scott
"You confuse a career with a job, now get back to your career of flipping hamburgers"
Damn dude. Don't get your panties all in a wad.
20 - Michael J. West
The idea that she has the plan before the election is a bit of chcik counting.
Or perhaps campaigning? As in, campaigning for a Democratic majority by outlining what that majority will do.
You could still throw the if vs when but that would beg the question, why address it now unless you believe when and not if?
Well, in this case, she addressed it because she was asked to do so by the writer of the Yahoo! news article.
21 - Big Dog
Mike, #20
Point taken