Friday, January 18, 2013

Nancy Pelosi Showing Again She Has Little if Any Grasp of Reality...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


This from the Queen of gimmickry.

The Hill - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday rejected the House GOP’s three-month plan to increase the debt ceiling.

A spokesman for Pelosi said that the bill coming to the floor next week, which would raise the debt ceiling with the condition that Congress will not get paid if the House and Senate fail to pass a budget, is a "gimmick."

“This is a gimmick unworthy of the challenges we face and the national debate we should be having. The message from the American people is clear: no games, no default,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

He called for a “clean” debt-ceiling increase without conditions.

“We need a clean debt ceiling increase and a bipartisan and balanced budget that protects Medicare and Social Security, invests in the future, and responsibly reduces the deficit,” he said. “This proposal does not relieve the uncertainty faced by small businesses, the markets and the middle class.”

Democrats want a budget that has a “balance” between spending cuts and tax increases.

GOP leaders said Friday that they will hold the debt-ceiling vote next week and that they are backing down from a previous demand that all debt-ceiling increases be accompanied by an equal amount of actual spending cuts.

Instead of concrete cuts, the GOP plan tries to force the Senate to pass a budget for the first time in four years. The GOP is banking that cutting off an unpopular Congress's pay will poll well with the public and be hard for Democrats to oppose.

The Pelosi reaction to the plan is more negative than that of the White House and Senate Democrats.

President Obama’s spokesman said Friday it is encouraged by the GOP shift.{Read More}

Ya know the person is out their when even their own progressive party is in opposition at certain levels.

Via: Memeorandum

49 comments:

  1. When Pelosi said, "Well, you just have to sign it to find out what's in it", we all knew she was batsh*t crazy and totally clueless.

    'Nuff said.

    Anything that escapes this botox-laden mutant is simply a sound bite waiting to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What exactly is wrong with Pelosi's position?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What isn't wrong with most everything she stands for?

      Delete
  3. Pelosi is all about personal gain at public expense; no way will she like this idea.

    "Democrats want a budget that has a “balance” between spending cuts and tax increases."

    That's like having a balance between sickness and health. Really, the focus should be a LOT more on cutting the waste spending, and a LOT less on stealing from an already overtaxed populace.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Over taxed populace?
    We are 17 trillion in debt.
    Seems we are under taxed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les,

    You need a better class of anonymous trolls here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I know. You wouln't believe some trolls I get here. So rabidly delusional leftist they are ridiculous.

      Delete
  6. Democrats want a budget that has a “balance” between spending cuts and tax increases.

    Now THAT is funny... given that they haven't passed a "budget" in four years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As per law, Obama has submitted a budget for each fiscal year he’s been president -- fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, according to a quick check on the Government Printing Office’s website, where the documents are posted. It’s as simple as that.



    Congress last adopted a budget resolution in fiscal year 2010. It neglected to do so in fiscal year 2011 and appears unlikely to agree on a budget framework for the next fiscal year, 2012, which begins Oct. 1, said Steve Ellis, a budget expert with Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that analyzes federal spending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the Senate and house aren't supposed to compromise and vote to pass a budget every year? Who knew?

      Delete
  8. Shaw, Obama's lst budget was voted down 414-0 in the House and 97-0 in the Senate. That doesn't sound all that boffo to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I gotta go with Will on this one, Shaw. Not a one Democrat supported Obama's budget plan. That's gotta say something to you.

      Delete
  9. You can't expect the senate to pass the sorts of loony budgets passed in a House filled with crack-pot Tea Party idiots.

    And Pelosi is right, the crack-pot loonies in the House need to stop horsing around with the debt limit. If they want to reduce spending they need to responsibly follow their constitutional duty to make new spending decisions. The debt ceiling reflects decisions already made. It is hypocritical and recklessly irresponsible to renege on debts already accrued.

    You cons and you're buffet belief in responsibility are a joke.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...debts already accrued." Oh, like the ones we amassed due to the 111th Congressional Session?

      You really are an ignorant slob aren't you Joisey? Even now, with the facts in front of you, you refuse to blame Obama or the Democrats for anything.

      Astounding.

      Delete
    2. Wow, you are one hateful dude, huh? Got anything of substance to address my point, or would you rather just hurl epithets like an angry child?

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. The worst way to horse around with the debt limit is to increase it. To increase it would be grossly irresponsible. The Federal government has more than enough money to pay its required obligations.

      Instead of increasing it, they should cut the waste spending and lower it. obama's willfully running double or triple Bush's yearly debt increase is insane (And yes it was bad enough when Bush did it).

      Here is what Obama himself said about doing this terrible thing, back in 2006:

      "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally."

      Well, that was before he found that somehow, trashing the US economy, doubling the debt, and kicking millions out of their jobs somehow gave him political success and kept him in office.

      Delete
  10. The President is correct. The House needs to be responsible for its spending.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Ryan's budget grows federal spending by 40% over the next 11-12 years. Only a "crack-pot loony" on the left would have the audacity to call this type of approach "draconian".

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Jersey: You can't expect the senate to pass the sorts of loony budgets passed in a House filled with crack-pot Tea Party idiots.

    Yeah! They should continue passing the completely sane ones that put us another trillion in debt every year while wasting billions and improving nothing...

    Nancy Pelosi, like all of her ilk, is a doddering old fool whose money insulates her from real life. She is what's wrong with America and our government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silver: yes, and Pelosi is in it for the money and power and prestige. She is very greedy.

      Delete
  13. They have no choice, Silver. The House holds the purse strings, and if they choose to be stupid and reckless with the purse, it's up to the Senate and the President to hold them at bay.

    Nancy Pelosi is just a bogey man for the Right. Grow up. theer is no bogeyman.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JMJ,

      Your atrocious spelling is my personal bogeyman.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry you concern yourself with such trifling nonsense.

      Let me guess, you're still really upset Clinton wasn't impeached? You think maybe Obama is not a "natural born" citizen? Is the Moon Landing questionable to you? Do you concern yourself with any serious, real thing?

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Oh, JMJ...you do realize, of course, that you are the punchline to your very own joke, don't you? There, there...don't take it personal. And I totally adore Clinton. Any guy who can shove cigars into a woman's vagina, get caught for it, and NOT be in trouble for it is a role model, to be sure. Hillary was so proud, and Chelsea was delighted.

      Delete
    4. JMJ: Pelosi is a bogeyman for the average American. That is what her poorly thought out "more power for the rulers, less for the ruled" policies mean. Particularly onerous is her hostility to the middle class, as most of the people punished by the tax hikes she rammed through are middle class. All for her own personal gain.

      Delete
  14. Obama and the Democrats passed those behemoth and idiotic stimulus and omnibus bills in 2009 and then through a series of continuing resolutions were able to maintain this level of profligate spending for 4 more years. Yes, the Republicans could have laid the hammer down and tried to stop them, but that would have probably resulted in shutting the government down and partisan stooges like Jersey and Pelosi would persecuted them for it.......And I agree, Jersey, Ms. Pelosi isn't a bogey man. She's an idiot! "We have a plan for Medicare. It's called Medicare."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will: Yes, and the Obama stimulus increased unemployment while wasting money making wealthy underworked and overpaid union thugs even richer. A lose-lose-lose-lose situation for America.

      Delete
    2. Jersey: Bill Clinton was impeached. Were you born in 2003? I can't see how you could say he wasn't.

      Delete
    3. dmarks,

      Let him go, sir. He's on a roll and feels he is making salient points. Like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor in 1962, and JFK saved our Nation from the Vietnamese when he served aboard the USS Indianapolis. *gigglesnort*

      Delete
    4. Alright, trifling child, yes, he was impeached, but he was not convicted. Did you really not get my point, small child?

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Florida McJones:

      It is difficult to get any of your 'points' when it is blatantly obvious you do not have a grasp of the simplest facts available.

      I've had better conversations, and more credible conversations, with my 3-year old.

      Delete
    6. Dmarks, as you know, I'm not a major proponent of Keynesianism in general. But maybe what Obama and the Dems SHOULD have done was take 3-4 hundred billion and dedicated it to one or two massive goals; modernize and renovate the electric grid, fix all of the country's bridges that are presently under code, stuff like that, stuff that could potentially make us far more competitive. Just a thought.

      Delete
    7. ConFire3, do you ever have anything of substance to offer?

      Do you think it's wise and responsible to play around with the "debt ceiling?"

      Should we even have a "debt ceiling?"

      Isn't it the House' responsibility to make budgets and therefore to reduce spending if that's what they want to do?

      If the House passes budgets they know will not get past the Senate or the POTUS, then aren't they de facto shirking that responsibility?

      What did Pelosi say about all this that isn't true and real and wise and responsible???

      JMJ

      Delete
    8. "Should we even have a "debt ceiling?"

      Holy Christ, did you actually ask that question out loud?

      OF COURSE we should have a debt ceiling, Florida McJones! It is being responsible and wise to have one. Good lord, man, do you think we are made of money? It's OUR money, not your president's. Think, man, THINK!

      Delete
  15. Your point was that he was not impeached. But I am glad you did some basic research about Bill Clinton (and it's only one of the top two or three facts about him, period) and got educated and know better now.

    I suppose the child insult is fair. Probably, with the former exception of you, anyone with a 4th grade education or above knew Clinton was impeached.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still trifling like a child, huh, dmarks?

      JMJ

      Delete
  16. Confire: You have a point. I wonder if he knows about the conspiracy involving Ruby Jack Kennedy? Dan Rather himself read about it in documents hidden on LBJ's Blackberry.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm thinking it's about time to move on from this subject. Sort of beat it to death and seems it's going personal attack mode.

    Discuss ideas and argue points respectfully. Don't want or plan to go "Dondero" here at RN USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Les,

      My apologies. It is just that I find it too big of a temptation to not shoot at the targets JMJ gives me with his reckless and juvenile statements.

      Sorry, Florida McJones, to have attacked your stupidity in such fashion. I will submit to the authority of Les, since this is his blog and I need to be a better guest.

      Delete
    2. Dondero? Googling finds a lot of things including jewelers. But I think there is a dead horse in a Stephen King book with a name like that.

      Delete
    3. Libertarian Republican, Eric Dondero is Publisher/Editor

      Delete
    4. Les: I was totally wrong then. In King, even, Dandelo is not the horse then, but its owner. But I know I am wrong, and will not "pull a Jersey" by calling you a trifling child, truffe-hunting munchkin, Trifid kiddo, or anything similar to cover up for my ignorance. In fact, I am thankful to learn what-is-what.

      Delete
  18. I haven't yet. But I suppose I can understand you lashing out with mindless insults and nonsequitur words ("trifle" has about as much to do with anything here as "truffle" does) because you were caught in flat footed ignorance about a major fact of concerning the Clinton administration.

    A more mature person than you would be glad to have been correccted on such a basic matter. You are digging yourself a deeper hole.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If you don't like being called a trifling child, first, don't start the hurling of the epithets, and second, actually engage in the substance of the argument.

    Les actually will argue his positions. Few of you conservatives ever bother do anything but cheer your team. Cheering is all well and fine, but actually playing on the team makes far more difference.

    Try actually arguing the substance of the matters.

    I asked these questions before, with no response, but I'll go ahead and ask them again (probably in vain):

    Do you think it's wise and responsible to play around with the "debt ceiling?"

    Should we even have a "debt ceiling?"

    Isn't it the House' responsibility to make budgets and therefore to reduce spending if that's what they want to do?

    If the House passes budgets they know will not get past the Senate or the POTUS, then aren't they de facto shirking that responsibility?

    What did Pelosi say about all this that isn't true and real and wise and responsible???

    Anyone? No one? No one???

    Isn't that what this whole post was about?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jmj... I first want to acknowledge your recognition that I indeed will argue my points and that I may actually have something to offer. It's a start and perhaps the rest of the ideologues (ahem, mirrors are indeed a wonderful invention for those who practice a modicum of introspection and self evaluation) will follow suit. Now to respond to your list.

      1} No, playing around with the dept ceiling is not wise. There are actually two issues here at present. A) We must raise the debt ceiling now so as to continue to meet our obligations to our creditors. Just as the responsible individual or family does so should our nation. B) Continuing to raise the ceiling without regard to balancing our budget annually and creating eventual surpluses that will enable the nation to gradually pay down it's current 17 trillion dollar debt is ultimately the most irresponsible act the current (and future) President(s), and Congress(es) can take. Realistically this will likely mean spending cuts and tax increases. Assuming we are actually serious about doing something.

      2) Yes we absoluting should. With the understanding that, after balancing our books and working off the debt, resulting in a lowering of the debt ceiling that during times of crises or severe economic downturn the ceilng can be raised. You see, it is realy about responsibilty and common sense.

      3)Absolutly jmj. It is the responsibilty of the House to deleiver a budget that controls spending as well as insuring funds are availble for the proper funding of the government to carry out its role. As views on what constituts proper funding vary greatly therein lies the challenge. A reading of the works of Thomas Paine is recomnded for al Partriots out there who are really concer4ed about proper funding.

      4) Well jmj, while I see your point on this one I simply must ask in eturn. As the House of representatives is the chamber that represents the people (keep in mind the constitution, balance of power and al that) is it not the responsibility of the Senate an the President to follow the will of the people?

      My persoal viwew is that today, in the present, both parties are too busy playing politics for personal gain to take isses seriously and andle hem in the best interests of the nation. I said both parties and I beleive that a accurate statement. However, If asked today, in the present which I beleive is the worst ofender I would have to say thge rEpublcan party.

      5) I shall leave the last for you to rationally defend, on a non emotional level why you think Pelosi is anyhing more than a power hungry very wealthy demagague.

      Have a great weekend jmj. Looking forwaqrd to your reasoned and impersonal response.

      Delete
    2. Jersey said "If you don't like being called a trifling child, first, don't start the hurling of the epithets, and second, actually engage in the substance of the argument."

      The "trifling child" was the first epithet hurled in that part of the argument. And your entirely incorrect claim about Clinton was part of the substance of the argument.

      "Les actually will argue his positions."

      Yeah. I don't see the claim that Clinton wasn't impeached anywhere in it...

      Few of you conservatives ever bother do anything but cheer your team. Cheering is all well and fine, but actually playing on the team makes far more difference.

      "Do you think it's wise and responsible to play around with the "debt ceiling?""

      Not at all. I support what Obama said in 2006 when Bush and the Republicans wanted to play wiht it and raise it instead of cut waste spending.

      "Should we even have a "debt ceiling?"

      Ideally, it should be at $0. One trillion is pretty bad. $16 trillion... WHOA DUDE!!!

      "If the House passes budgets they know will not get past the Senate or the POTUS, then aren't they de facto shirking that responsibility?"

      You can't blame the House when it passed responsible budgets and the Senate or President CHOOSE not to take it to the next level. If the House passes a bad budget just to impress the Senate and President, it has already shirked its duty.

      "What did Pelosi say about all this that isn't true and real and wise and responsible???"

      Pelosi is all about irresponsible: opposing cutting waste spending, clobbering the middle class with tax hikes, personally benefiting from wasting tax dollars, demanding much worse waste and imbalance.

      Delete
    3. Jmj, I thought ya might respond, but since you didn't I guess that means we are in agreement and that you've come to see the light with respect to Ms. Pelosi.

      Delete
  20. I agree that we shouldn't playing around with the debt-ceiling and that's why I find Mr. Obama's hypocrisy (the fact that he voted against raising it in 2006) on the matter so loathsome. And I'm still waiting to hear Mr. Jersey or Shaw try and find the silver lining in Mr. Obama's budget going down in flames, 414-0 and 97-0. 414-0 LOL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed it is quite interesting as well as telling that you have heard Nothing at all, let alone something of substance to your perfectly rational observation. Not at all surprising really.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that have no value but to demean another commenter or spread fallacious statements meant to result in a food fight or crap fest.

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

A note to ALL, the blog Lying Lester, a spoof blog designed and set up by one extremely unscrupulous lying asshat is not the property of this site and there is ABSOLUTELY no connection between the two.

It is disturbed and dishonest individuals like Dervish Sanders of Sleeping with The Devil progressive blog that over time has caused this this unfortunate situation.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails