Following the collapse of Joe Biden's debt-ceiling negotiations, and the collapse of the budget-balancing "Gang of Six," and the collapse of Obama's "Deficit Reduction Commission," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is demanding a place at the table in the critical Boehner-Obama debt ceiling negotiations and threatens that unless she is allowed to participate, she will cage the Cowardly Lion, disassemble the Tin Woodsman, set fire to the Scarecrow, and kill Dorothy.
And her little dog, too!
Pelosi, who made a point of keeping Republicans miles away from any negotiations relating to Obamacare while House Majority Leader, suddenly seems to feel that bipartisanship is more appealing than it used to be. And she is resentful that she wasn't allowed to participate in April's emergency negotiations to keep the government funded...which was caused by Pelosi's failure to pass, or even propose, an operating budget while she was in charge.
If allowed to participate, perhaps Ms. Pelosi will again share her insights on her 2007 "Pay As You Go" initiative, which she swore all Democrats under her leadership would follow "so that our children and grandchildren are not saddled with mountains of debt."
After which, of course, she went on the greatest deficit spending spree in history.
So frankly, we don't know why Nancy Pelosi needs to be at the debt talks when she is already so well-represented by the debt itself.
-
23 comments:
I believe that God has endowed all of us with a sense of shame as part of the conscience that springs from our soul. I am still amazed at how some people are able to suppress that and cannot even see the irony of demanding that which they militantly refused to give. As the lion might say, "she's gotta lotta noive".
"Noive" yes.
Sense, no.
I'd be appalled that she continues to get elected, but my district keeps sending Conyers back, as do the folks to the west w/ Dingell.
Where's a bucket of water when you need it?
@Earl- When Obamacare is eventually dismantled (please, please...!) it's easy to imagine Nancy writhing in agony about the destruction of all her "beautiful wickedness."
The mountains of debt this nation is piling on, at the federal and state level is going to doom us all to national bankruptcy. As I like to put it -- you can't earn $24,000 a year and spend $40,000 a year for very long. (2.4 Trillion in tax revenue, 4 Trillion in spending is the federal equivalent) On, once in a while, for emergencies, sure, but year in and year out is not going to work.
That the Democrats complained of Bush's deficit spending (me too) and then went hog wild is so hypocritical I can't fathom it. There's no way to raise taxes high enough to meet the expenses that's for sure. Time to dismantle the Dept of Energy (which has not done much but ban energy production) and the Department of Commerce (Americans know how to shop and do commerce) and reign in the "everyone is entitled to everyone else's money but their own" mentality that the Democrats have hoodwinked so many to believe in.
Personally, I would not raise the debt ceiling whatsoever, and cut "discretionary" spending to Zero bucks, as a good start. And if the RINOs raise the debt ceiling, all they'll do is enable the drunks in the bar to open the next bottle of booze.
The level of denial is mind boggling. And still plenty of evil little flying monkeys to do her bidding...
@Jim - I agree. How can they justify ANY "Discretionary" spending when they don't even have two coins to rub together, discretely or otherwise?
As to Nasty Pelosi: I have nothing nice to say ...
@Jim & Chuck ~ It seems to me that it is not merely "discretionary" spending which must be put under scrutiny, but all spending. Much of that which is "non-discretionary" is so labelled as to make it sacrosanct. Both parties (or both branches of the one "ruling" party, if you prefer) are equally at fault -- and this is true at all levels of government. If there's an accidental "surplus" in the budget one year, it must be time to start another program. It would only be a morbid radical (like me) who would even consider that paying down debt -- or at least retaining a reserve -- would be a more useful application for that very temporary and unintentional "embarrassment of riches" someone found.
As far as NP is concerned, I think Chuck is right. I'm sure she must be a good grandmother.
The reality is, the overspending WILL come to an end eventually. The choice is whether to do it NOW, while we still have some control over the painful triage required, or wait until the Chinese and our other creditors dictate it to us, on their terms--which will be done on such terms that the USA as a culture and a functioning democracy will not survive.
@Jazz - totally agree. What gets me is that they even talk about discretionary spending as an idea we can entertain for some things! But yes, most of the non-discretionary spending needs to be rightly re-labeled discretionary.
Awwww. Po widdle Nancy. Won't the big, mean House Speaker let you play?
Geez, I wonder why.... I mean, YOU made an effort to include everybody when YOU were running the game. Right?
Please feel free to go back to the left coast and pout for about 20 years. And, take Boxer with you.
@Readers- The very idea of "discretionary spending" is indeed ludicrous when we owe a gazillion dollars. As Andrew points out, though, the spending WILL come to an end soon because there will be no money left to borrow or steal. The laws of math will trump the laws of Washington.
Our country is hurtling towards the ground from an unsustainably high altitude... and the only real debate is whether we'd rather be in a devastating crash or a messy but survivable crash-landing.
And it is simply stunning to me how many people are flipping unable or unwilling to see that.
It's simple...to get re-elected you promise to give things to people, then you don't do it but...youre already back in your seat in Congress.
I saw some lawmaker tell his constituents that cuts MUST be made, and lordy...they went ballistic! So, it made me realize...everyone wants the budget balanced, and spending down, but don't dare touch MY entitlements!
The vast majority of the federal budget is on "entitlements", and not "discretionary" spending. This is by Progressive design, as to make meaningful budget cuts nearly impossible. The 2nd part of the Progressive agenda is to get the vast majority of Americans dependent upon "entitlements". Socializing health care is the lynchpin of this strategy. Once they are the sole provider of health care, they've literally got you by the balls.
As for "bankruptcy": Notice how it really doesn't seem to scare the real liberals all that much. They only times they seem all that concerned about debt or the deficit is when it can be used as a tool against conservatives. So why is that? Could it be that they know the only way to achieve the true Marxist state would be to first totally destroy the previous capitalist one so that the scared masses will finally acquiesce?
I'm writing this visiting a friend who lives in a condo building full of the folks who work and lose about half their gross income to taxes. Directly across the street is a city-subsidized apartment complex built specifically to house the folks who consume the taxes taken from those very taxpayers. A few of those subsidized tax consumers are clearly disabled, or frail elderly, and I don't begrudge them a dime. But many are able-bodied seventh-generation welfare vampires who are not about to vote for a reduction in those nice regular monthly checks that magically and effortlessly arrive every month. The votes of one side of the street outnumber the votes on the other, even before any computer manipulation or other funny business.
That can't last forever, and can't end nicely, or well.
@EconJohn ~ I appreciate your remarks and agree ... except for one thing. REAL liberals are free with their OWN resources. POLITICAL Liberals are free with everyone else's resources (and rather selfish with their own, effectively stolen-from-others resources).
Andrew, it is understood (in some circles) that when talking about "the coming zombie apocalypse" it is the folks in building two who are the zombies. They are already infected. They are already eating this nation alive. You know how the story plays out (ie, not at all well for the zombies).
Jazz - yes, I'm frequently disgusted by that very hyprocacy. Please, feel free to spend your own money on studies that teach chimps to do drugs (what, can't find enough human volunteers?) or pay for 'art' that includes cutting onself, smearing blood on rags, and sending them out over the audience on clothesline if you like.
Steal *my* money to pay for that stuff, and I tend to get pissy.
And that's even before we get to subsidizing perfectly able folks too gol-durned lazy / stupid / ignorant to get a gol-durned job...
GRR!!!
It's enough to get me to vote for a Bush again! Or even Michelle Bachmann! (who, yes, *is* a flake, IMAO...)
@Readers- Simply put, the decision about whether or not the country should spend itself out of existence should not be left in the hands of those who are recipients (and only recipients) of that spending. I'm not sure how to rectify that, but believe down in my bones that the time has come for votes to be cast only by those with skin in the game.
@Pete ~ Please, allow me to clarify a couple of things here.
I do spend my own resources (money, time, etc) in helping others in need, but mostly in the "Hand Up" manner. I don't insist others to do so, but would encourage all to follow their own conscience in supporting whatever causes and people they find worthy -- using their own money (and none of yours or mine) to do so.
Secondly, I think I can still come up with a couple of recipes for minced monkey and the like.... (My first BSA troop was sponsored by the Army's Jungle Operations school, many years back.)
Finally ... why are we always stuck with having to choose between "the lesser of two evils"?
Jazz, I was pretty clear the first time, but hey, effort to ensure we're on the same page is rarely wasted.
((-"pb
Didn't mean to come off as if I were criticizing you personally, if that's what was heard, full apols. Yes, there are plenty of very good 'hand up' groups to which to donate time / money / vehicles / resources.
And, as most folks have said, there is a HUGE difference b/n public assistance for those *unable* to care for themselves, and those who are unWILLING...
MmmmmmMMMmmm, Monkey Helper!
Finally, a) because the system tends to drive away the 'good' and competent, as a rule b) anyone who WANTS the job is probably fundamentally unqualified c) there *is* no "perfect" candidate d) 'the media' are allowed to pre-select candidates for us. Last time, I didn't even know Tommy Thompson (former gov of Wis, w/ excellent track record of fiscal responsibility and welfare reform) was running until he quit...
That all having been said, ANY of the current crop of R's would be a major improvement over the Current Occupant.
Well, it's technically true that this administration increased the debt by unprecedented amounts... but most of that was actually the result of putting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the main budget where they were actually counted as part of the national debt instead of being hidden costs.
Maybe you could criticize Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate for things they actually did wrong, like not overhauling health care enough (our system is still laughably backward and inaccessible compared to the rest of the developed world, with access heavily restricted), or the fact that neither Obama nor the other Democrats have shown any need for the progressive social spending that has historically proven to be the way out of such recessions. (Yes, I know Revisionist history says that FDR's programs made the Great Depression worse... but there's these little things called "facts" that get in the way of that interpretation, including that Hoover's favoring austerity measures and depending on the self-correcting nature of the free market is kind of what caused it to become the Great Depression in the first place.)
Also, while we're at it, the Free Market is actually impossible. It assumes that if you can get something you need down the street for $50, or halfway across the world for 5 cents, it not only takes no meaningful effort or expense to discover this, but also no meaningful effort and expense to buy in where it's cheaper -- no such thing as shipping costs, travel time, fuel costs, etc. We don't have that, and applying the principles of such a market to reality are like applying the principles behind a frictionless engine to an actual engine, then somehow being shocked and confused when the engine explodes or locks up. You can't treat a system containing friction as frictionless and actually have anything work.
@megmouse- I've got no problem with the war expenses being reflected in the budget, but let's not overlook little expenditures like Obama's stimulus - which has now been shown to be a colossal failure, unless you count enriching his political cronies. Which we don't.
"Not overhauling health care enough?" Oh please, doctors are quitting by the droves, and a recent study found that up to 78 million Americans will lose their employer insurance because of Obamacare, and the LIE that "if you like your insurance you can keep it." I agree that our health care system needs overhauling, but couldn't disagree more strongly with Obamacare's method of doing so.
Spending our way out of a recession isn't an option. The government has already spent every dollar that it can beg, borrow, or steal. So the only way to genuinely energize the economy is to LET IT WORK by reducing taxes and regulations which, as those "little things called facts" tell us, has worked reliably in the past.
"The Free Market is actually impossible"? Seriously, WTF? (And I don't mean "Winning the Future," though the two acronyms are interchangeable). Do you actually go outside, or go to the store? Do you not see capitalism and competition (ie, the free market) working around you all the time? And if there IS no "free market" (and can BE no "free market"), then what do you think is actually going on? Is it the Bilderbergs who are creating fake price wars between McDonalds and Wendys just to keep us all confused?
Post a Comment