The Nancy Pelosi Perpetual Motion Machine!

[Pony Boy]

All I can say folks is this woman is the speaker of the house ....

Now really, I want to hear you lefty loons explain this one :rofl:



<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WUAG3Fqz56s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WUAG3Fqz56s&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[El Guapo]

Yup, she's an idiot (but we've known that for ages). Thank you California...

[Naggle Nole]

Every time this woman opens her mouth, I am left feeling embarrassed

[Obushma]

That's gotta be LABF's mom.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I think she has lost it.

When she began preaching from the pulpit about democrat values, I knew she had slipped. How far down is anyone's guess.

[cutthemdown]

She could lose. To even think that in calif is crazy but she really could lose this next election.

[cutthemdown]

trust me guys I have tried to get her Fienstien and Boxer out. Pelosi not my district but I'd like to see her go as well.

[El Minion]

Mark WeisbrotCo-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, D.C.
Posted: June 25, 2010 01:04 PM
More Stimulus Needed to Reduce Unemployment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/more-stimulus-needed-to-r_b_625729.html)

It is sad to see that the U.S. Congress is having trouble even passing just $24 billion for unemployment insurance at a time when the economy is weak and unemployment is at nearly 10 percent. This shows the power of right-wing ideology in this country: Even the simplest, smallest, and most obvious steps to relieve economic misery can be held back.

It seems that the right has made headway in convincing some politicians, and a good part of the media, to take seriously their message that government spending is the problem rather than a solution for our economic ills. However, the public is far from convinced: The latest Gallup poll finds that Americans favor "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy" by a huge margin of 60 to 38 percent.

The majority view is supported by basic economic logic. It was the collapse of private demand -- consumption and investment -- brought on by the bursting of an $8 trillion housing bubble that put us in this mess. Since our trade deficit is growing again, as a matter of accounting that leaves only government spending to give the economy a boost until private spending is sufficient to bring us back to full employment.

The unemployment report for May -- which showed a mere 20,000 non-Census jobs created, compared with 217,000 the prior month, was a reminder that private spending is still a long way from leading this economic recovery.

The choice is simple, really: more stimulus or more unemployment. And more poverty, and more people losing their homes and health insurance.

The White House projects it will take nearly eight years -- until 2018 -- for unemployment to reach 5.2 percent, or what is considered full employment. This causes real long-term economic and social damage. For example, we know that children's achievement test scores fall with family income. And the layoffs of teachers across the country will also take their toll on education.

Young workers entering the job market will face not only poor job prospects but reduced income over their working life. Since the lower-paid and least educated are hardest hit, this period of prolonged unemployment will worsen income distribution in the United States.

This misery and pain is unnecessary, since the government is capable of creating employment and increasing economic growth. Right-wing politicians argue that the last 16 months of stimulus have not worked, since unemployment remains at 9.7 percent. This is nonsense. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus has created between 1.2 and 2.8 million jobs, and private estimates -- from across the political spectrum -- are in the same range. The problem with the stimulus is simply that it has not been big enough -- it has replaced perhaps one-tenth of the loss of private demand.

This has been more of a problem in recent months, as the cutbacks by state and local governments have actually outweighed the Federal stimulus, giving the economy a net negative contribution from government overall.

Those who think that the federal deficit and the national debt preclude a stronger stimulus should take a look at the facts. Most of the present deficit is a result of the recession, and will disappear as the economy returns to full employment. The long-term deficit problems are completely a result of our out-of-control health care costs, which are a disease of the private sector -- not the government. And with inflation at two percent, the Federal Reserve can even finance stimulus spending by buying U.S. Treasury bonds.

Nothing that our government spends now to relieve suffering and restore employment will necessarily burden future generations. On the contrary, it is the failure to act that will hurt them.

This column was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on June 24, 2010

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

All I can say folks is this woman is the speaker of the house ....

Now really, I want to hear you lefty loons explain this one :rofl:


Don't you realize that even if every last one of your criticisms of Obama, Pelosi, and other Democrats are valid and right on the money, those criticism fall hollow and are blunted by your eight years of inaction and silence - if not outright support - during the Bush years?

In other words, you and your fellow rightards have no credibility left, and no claim to any sort of moral high ground.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Don't you realize that even if every last one of your criticisms of Obama, Pelosi, and other Democrats are valid and right on the money, those criticism fall hollow and are blunted by your eight years of inaction and silence - if not outright support - during the Bush years?

In other words, you and your fellow rightards have no credibility left, and no claim to any sort of moral high ground.

This coming from an Obamazombie with Ron Artest throwing gang signs on his avatar.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This coming from an Obamazombie with Ron Artest throwing gang signs on his avatar.

Speaking of lost credibility...

AngryDramaQueen is the poster boy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<big><b><big>Quotes</big></b> </big>


"We were fighting against the health insurance industry, Republicans said no.
We're fighting against Big Oil, the Republicans said no. Democrats are fighting the big banks and financial institutions; Republicans said no. Not one of them voted for the regulatory reform. And on Big Oil, what more did we need than them apologizing?"<big>

</big>
<big>- Nancy Pelosi </big><big> Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/pelosi-to-boehner-youre-n_n_631024.html) (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/)</big>
<big>
Suddenly, Democrats are listing the facts, which they ONLY do when an election is approaching</big>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This coming from an Obamazombie with Ron Artest throwing gang signs on his avatar.


<big>Too many Christians in your town? </big>
<big><big>Call Christian Disposal</big></big>
<big></big>
<big>http://www.bartcop.com/christian-disposal.jpg </big>
<big></big>
<big>ha ha</big>

[randomtask]

<big>Too many Christians in your town? </big>
<big><big>Call Christian Disposal</big></big>
<big></big>
<big>http://www.bartcop.com/christian-disposal.jpg </big>
<big></big>
<big>ha ha</big>

You stay classy, LABF...

[barryr]

Don't you realize that even if every last one of your criticisms of Obama, Pelosi, and other Democrats are valid and right on the money, those criticism fall hollow and are blunted by your eight years of inaction and silence - if not outright support - during the Bush years?

In other words, you and your fellow rightards have no credibility left, and no claim to any sort of moral high ground.

Broken record, yet again have to bring Bush into a thread nothing to do with him as always. Mental midget LOL

[barryr]

Pelosi was born in wealth and married wealth, she has no clue what the ordinary citizen goes through. To think unemployment checks is an answer to help stimulate the economy just shows her knowledge of economics as well and how many dummies her district must have to keep electing her into office.

[barryr]

You stay classy, LABF...

Stay? When is ever that?

[sirhcyennek81]

I actually understand the line of thought Pelosi is using. Money government borrows and then uses to support state unemployment rolls is used to keep others in their current jobs by propping up demand for goods and services.

But this line of logic is pure fantasy. Eventually the people(country) you continually borrow money from will cut the tap. Which then means the states will no longer be able to offer extensions on unemployment benefits, which will shrink demand and cause the unemployment rate to climb as employers can no longer afford to keep their current number of employees. So the plan it seems is to keep borrowing money from China and the EU and then eventually raise taxes, which squeezes employers even more.

Private business is the best engine for economic growth, not the federal government. The best thing our government can do is cut taxes and completely gut or remove federal entitlement programs. The best way to actually free up capital is to actually let the people who earn it use it.

But anyway...yay socialism...yay obama...yay pelosi...keep fighting those evil capitalists...so what if you took money from them at nearly twice the rate republicans did...keep up the good fight for the lil guy...

:Broncos:

[mhgaffney]

Pony Boy would love to replace Pelosi with someone from the tea party. But that is not going to happen. We are talking about San Francisco, one of the most progressive enclaves in the nation.

Pelosi's own constituents constantly criticize her support for the war -- but she fails to hear them. This deafness comes from having political power.

Let us hope Cindy Sheehan runs against Pelosi in the primary -- and beats her. That would be great.

Incidentally, Pelosi happens to be correct in the video -- on the issue. We have a corrupt Congress that votes trillions for war and Wall Street -- but refuses a small -- by comparison -- appropriation to extend unemployment benefits.

That is a disgrace.

[Rohirrim]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3ObpQk7ncPo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3ObpQk7ncPo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[TonyR]

The best thing our government can do is cut taxes and completely gut or remove federal entitlement programs.

LOL!!! Can't cut already low taxes in the current economic environment and the gutting of entitlement programs is a political non-starter. Even incremental change, no matter how prudent, on this front is difficult.

[TonyR]

I posted this in another thread but am re-posting here because of relevance to the discussion. This is from a Jan 2004 article. You need to learn from past mistakes.


O’Neill watched all this with anguish. Shortly before he was fired, he confronted Cheney about the Administration’s latest proposal to cut taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over ten years, pointing out that the country was “moving toward a fiscal crisis.” The Vice-President stopped him. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. “We won the midterms. This is our due.” In fact, Reagan didn’t prove anything of the kind. Early in his first term, Congress was forced to adopt emergency tax increases and spending cuts to restrain the ballooning budget shortfall. Despite this remedial action, it wasn’t until the early nineties, when George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton raised taxes, that the nation’s finances were put in proper order, opening the way to the longest economic expansion on record.

This year, absent a major shift in policy, budget deficits will exceed those incurred in the Reagan era. As a result, the country faces the prospect of higher interest rates, lower investment, a spending crunch in Congress, and, quite possibly, a financial crisis as international investors lose faith in the ability of the Treasury to finance the imminent retirement of the baby boomers. The White House, under the guise of providing a necessary short-term stimulus to the economy—the short term being a period that ends on Election Day—has stored up a lot of trouble for the future. Our breezy President, if he is reëlected, may well find himself ruing his refusal to heed O’Neill’s warnings.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/01/26/040126ta_talk_cassidy#ixzz0sjAWoKMc

[JJJ]

I actually understand the line of thought Pelosi is using. Money government borrows and then uses to support state unemployment rolls is used to keep others in their current jobs by propping up demand for goods and services.

But this line of logic is pure fantasy. Eventually the people(country) you continually borrow money from will cut the tap. Which then means the states will no longer be able to offer extensions on unemployment benefits, which will shrink demand and cause the unemployment rate to climb as employers can no longer afford to keep their current number of employees. So the plan it seems is to keep borrowing money from China and the EU and then eventually raise taxes, which squeezes employers even more.

Private business is the best engine for economic growth, not the federal government. The best thing our government can do is cut taxes and completely gut or remove federal entitlement programs. The best way to actually free up capital is to actually let the people who earn it use it.

But anyway...yay socialism...yay obama...yay pelosi...keep fighting those evil capitalists...so what if you took money from them at nearly twice the rate republicans did...keep up the good fight for the lil guy...

:Broncos:

Fantastic post all around. Exactly. 100% agree. The government should never pay out anything simply because it is needed. Otherwise you will never break the cycle of need.

The government should only pay out something if it has been earned in some way. Unemployment benefits, medicaid, all of it. They should have to work low paying private industry jobs at least 24 hours per week to get them.

The only exception for me is someone incapable of work because of a severe disability.

[TonyR]

They should have to work low paying private industry jobs at least 24 hours per week to get them.

The only exception for me is someone incapable of work because of a severe disability.

Look, I hate the fact that there are people taking advantage of the system and living off of our tax dollars as much as anyone. It sickens me. Working in a city I see such people every day and it's a shame that the bureaucracy is too inept to stop it. But in response to your post, what about the elderly and single mothers? I know your response to the single mother is that she shouldn't have gotten pregnant, but how about if her husband was a cop or firefighter or soldier killed in action? For that matter, what if her husband was a plumber who had a heart attack? What about the people who have catastrophic illnesses in the family that decimate their savings? I could go on and on with such examples. What do you do with these people, just let them suffer and die?

[mhgaffney]

It never fails. The rightards complain endlessly about poor people using food stamps -- or people out of work getting unemployment compensation -- call it whatever Welfare...

Yet these same rightards are mum about the no bid contracts to Halliburton -- mum about the rampant cronyism -- mum about the trillion dollar giveaway to Wall Street.

It's the same old **** and it never ends.

[JJJ]

Look, I hate the fact that there are people taking advantage of the system and living off of our tax dollars as much as anyone. It sickens me. Working in a city I see such people every day and it's a shame that the bureaucracy is too inept to stop it. But in response to your post, what about the elderly and single mothers? I know your response to the single mother is that she shouldn't have gotten pregnant, but how about if her husband was a cop or firefighter or soldier killed in action? For that matter, what if her husband was a plumber who had a heart attack? What about the people who have catastrophic illnesses in the family that decimate their savings? I could go on and on with such examples. What do you do with these people, just let them suffer and die?

Her husband should have gotten some life insurance when they first got married.

I would have them visit their local church. They will find people there that can help them even through the toughest times. They will find people willing to help, provide some job leads or part time work, and give them emotional and spiritual support to get to the next stage of their life after their tragedy.

[JJJ]

It never fails. The rightards complain endlessly about poor people using food stamps -- or people out of work getting unemployment compensation -- call it whatever Welfare...

Yet these same rightards are mum about the no bid contracts to Halliburton -- mum about the rampant cronyism -- mum about the trillion dollar giveaway to Wall Street.

It's the same old **** and it never ends.

No righty would ever support no-bid contracts. It goes against everything we believe in. We support the free market and therefore open competition. Bush and Cheney should have gotten rightfully hammered for Halliburton no-bid awards and did.

But lets also remember that about 40 to 50% of the money Halliburton takes in goes out in the form of salaries and wages to everday folks.

And don't fool yourself that the no-bid awards and cronyism have stopped since Obama came into office though. It is just as bad or worse, just who receives the awards have changed.

[TailgateNut]

Her husband should have gotten some life insurance when they first got married.

I would have them visit their local church. They will find people there that can help them even through the toughest times. They will find people willing to help, provide some job leads or part time work, and give them emotional and spiritual support to get to the next stage of their life after their tragedy.

Hilarious!

[Garcia Bronco]

First rule of being stuck I'm a hole; Stop digging.

[Garcia Bronco]

Look, I hate the fact that there are people taking advantage of the system and living off of our tax dollars as much as anyone. It sickens me. Working in a city I see such people every day and it's a shame that the bureaucracy is too inept to stop it. But in response to your post, what about the elderly and single mothers? I know your response to the single mother is that she shouldn't have gotten pregnant, but how about if her husband was a cop or firefighter or soldier killed in action? For that matter, what if her husband was a plumber who had a heart attack? What about the people who have catastrophic illnesses in the family that decimate their savings? I could go on and on with such examples. What do you do with these people, just let them suffer and die?

Yeah, my mother was a single mother and got the job done. I expect it of others. She never used a dime of taxpayer money.

[TonyR]

Yeah, my mother was a single mother and got the job done. I expect it of others. She never used a dime of taxpayer money.

I'm betting your mother had a support system, most likely family, to help her out. Not everybody has this. If an unskilled, single woman can't make enough money to pay for child care so she can work what do you suggest? Again, this isn't an ideal situation. None of us want this situation to exist, none of us want to foot this woman's bills. But what is your solution to this hypothetical woman's situation? Or how about a family that has a child with a debilitating disease where the household's primary bread winner loses their job and therefore their health insurance. Do you just let this family starve and the child die? Seriously, some of you over simplify these things and fail to engage in critical thinking.

[cutthemdown]

It never fails. The rightards complain endlessly about poor people using food stamps -- or people out of work getting unemployment compensation -- call it whatever Welfare...

Yet these same rightards are mum about the no bid contracts to Halliburton -- mum about the rampant cronyism -- mum about the trillion dollar giveaway to Wall Street.

It's the same old **** and it never ends.

Probably because big evil corporations at least work and get things done. Welfare is just a total drain.

[cutthemdown]

I'm betting your mother had a support system, most likely family, to help her out. Not everybody has this. If an unskilled, single woman can't make enough money to pay for child care so she can work what do you suggest? Again, this isn't an ideal situation. None of us want this situation to exist, none of us want to foot this woman's bills. But what is your solution to this hypothetical woman's situation? Or how about a family that has a child with a debilitating disease where the household's primary bread winner loses their job and therefore their health insurance. Do you just let this family starve and the child die? Seriously, some of you over simplify these things and fail to engage in critical thinking.

The key is loses job. All we have to do is make it so people already without jobs don't have more kids and then get more welfare and food stamps.

it is supposed to be a safety net, but its now a way of life for a lot of welfare users.

If you have a kid and were already on welfare, to get more money you have to get tubes tied etc etc.

[uplink]

IMO the problem is the U.S. can't let the Taliban take back over in Afgan. since it would be a loss of face. Unfortunately this will happen as soon a we leave. I guess the counter weight is giving power to the warlords but they probably can't hold back the Taliban without international troops. I assume the cash is for the warlords.

Another idea is to get the Taliban to change their name and everyone can act like a different group took over the country and the U.S. can exit. The new group announces that they denounce international terrorism and all is well. This would be hard to arrange, but hey it may be the easiest thing to do.

[barryr]

I think I'll decide to change my job to just sit around and let others pay my way. I'm sure Pelosi would think that would help the economy.

[TonyR]

I think I'll decide to change my job to just sit around and let others pay my way.

Give that a shot and report back and let us all know how it works out. I'm sure you'll be living in the lap of luxury.