Here’s why the Democrats need Nancy Pelosi

Here’s another reason the Democrats need Nancy Pelosi: She has the gumption to stand and fight for the middle-class. She told NPR today that she would brook no compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy. (h/t TPM):

“It’s too costly. It’s $700 billion,” Pelosi told NPR this morning. “One year would be around $70 billion. That’s a lot of money to give a tax cut at the high end. And I remind you that those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs.”

Amen to that.
For those who insist that the Democrats ought to do what the American people want, as discerned by polls, well, the polls show the majority of Americans want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. The president ought to be willing to stand up and fight for that, too.

As the WaPo’s Eugene Robinson notes, from his book tour:

I’ve been hearing frustration at the willingness of Democrats to accommodate a Republican Party that refuses to give an inch. To progressives who may not understand the subtleties of inside-the-Beltway thinking, this looks like surrender.

Wednesday night, I gave a talk at Indiana State University. “You watch,” said a man in the audience, “the Democrats are going to cave on the tax cuts for the rich, just like they caved on everything else.”

Sure enough, on Thursday I awoke to read the Huffington Post’s interview with White House senior adviser David Axelrod, in which he appeared to signal that Obama – with great reluctance – might have to accept an extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans after all. Otherwise, Republicans would continue to block the Democrats’ preferred course of action, which is to extend the full tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000 a year.

96 comments Add your comment

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
2:58 pm

It’s just sad at this point, CT. It feels like you’re one of those washed up, old actors/athletes who is only trying to prove they are still relevant, only you’re doing it with actual washed up, old politicians.

And why do you never hear any of these politicians say that their own spending is too costly? It’s always some insipid comment about revenue not being enough, or actually letting people keep their own money being too costly. Unless you can convince me that people do not deserve to keep their own wealth, I’ll never agree with Queen Pelosi on this issue.

Kamchak's gerbil

November 12th, 2010
3:03 pm

CT – if you think that the wealthest should pay more then why not allow their vote to count more at the ballot box – maybe on a graduaded scale? Don’t laugh – it’s the same crappy logic that you are using!!!!!

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
3:08 pm

As Virginia Democrat Jim Moran once said, in regards to the Bush Administration, “we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth.”

I know, it’s crazy to think that if someone has wealth that they’re entitled to keep it, right? But that is basically Nancy Pelosi’s argument by saying, in effect, that if we allow people to keep their own money it will cost us too much.

But CT is apparently okay with it. She even Amen’d it. Praise the Lord!

Skitty Fritty

November 12th, 2010
3:13 pm

Cynthia:
Why don’t you voluntary give more of your money to the government if you feel like you don’t pay enough currently.

Union

November 12th, 2010
3:14 pm

here is a thought.. lets take it and give it to the govt.. where they can create jobs to the tune of 3.5 million each? or something silly like that..

Skitty Fritty

November 12th, 2010
3:16 pm

Why can’t you understand if we keep more of our money and SPEND it in our locoal areas how this will boost the economy faster than sending it to something called Washington and letting Washington SPEND our money?
You are a better steward of your own money than someone elses money. If you don’t believe me then send me your money and I will take care of it for you.

Skitty Fritty

November 12th, 2010
3:17 pm

Union:
Last time I checked, Government is run by taxes which are paid by the private sector.

roldawg70

November 12th, 2010
3:18 pm

i see again someone is suggesting money counts more than peoplemore money more votes
that happens enough without making it official

Union

November 12th, 2010
3:20 pm

skitty.. you are correct.. but we all know how efficient the govt is at everything.. :)

this just in from nancy.. Pelosi: ‘We Didn’t Lose Because of Me”

TBone

November 12th, 2010
3:20 pm

LMAO… She has the gumption to stand up for the middle class. I doubt Nasty Nancy even knows any real middle classers. She is the epitome of what is wrong with career politicians; arrogant, vile, pernicious, entitled and greedy.

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
3:22 pm

Actually, roldawg70, KG’s idea about the more you pay in taxes equalling more of a vote is similar to the way many businesses are run, where if a stakeholder has more stock than another, they get a greater percentage of the vote. I’m not saying I agree with the idea at the political level, but it doesn’t always seem fair to me that someone who pays hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes can have their vote negated by someone on welfare. Just being honest.

granny godzilla

November 12th, 2010
3:29 pm

I’m so proud of Nancy!

You go girl!

Tired of stupid people

November 12th, 2010
3:33 pm

Sure am glad that I am not one of those evilrich people that worked hard to make the money they have and the goverment wants to take most of it away from me.
Why do the people that work for the goverment beleive that anything you have, belongs to the goverment.
I have had a job from one poor person in my life and that was me. The worst boss I ever had.
Poor people do not create jobbs, they want a rich person to make a lot of money so they will provide jobs for the poor people.
I do not know how the goverment says they create jobs. The only jobs they can provide is the non productive, tax paid jobs. Not one job in goverment makes this country any richer. It take many tax payers to pay for just one goverment worker. People need to get over this crapabout rich people paying more taxes.Lets make the illegales pay 40% to send the money out of this country and lower the pay and benifits of the goverment workers. They should not have it any better than the people that pays the taxes to pay the paydays.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

November 12th, 2010
3:37 pm

It is undoubtedly true that few politicians have the gumption to stand against common sense and the public good simultaneously, thus Ms. Pelosi is a rare politician. Outside of a loopy few, nobody thinks increasing the size of government strengthens the productive economy; today, 18 months after the “Stimulus” there can be no rational dissenting voice.

granny godzilla

November 12th, 2010
3:38 pm

Rags

Sure can be rational dissenting voices….Krugman et al.

You’re just stuck in “R”….

Sounds like transmission problems

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
3:41 pm

granny – I’m glad that you bought in to Obama’s car & driver analogy, but you have to remember that for the last four years, the Dems have been in that driver’s seat.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

November 12th, 2010
3:45 pm

Good afternoon Granny, the first thing most people learn in driver’s ed is to put the car into reverse when you drive into a tree.

Mike Hunt

November 12th, 2010
3:48 pm

Cynthia, please listen and listen CAREFULLY. These “cuts” have been in place for 9 years, so the Federal Government has not collected this revenue for at least that long. The money comes from wage earners whether they are well-to-do or not; hurt one and you hurt all.

Did you know that every citizen (including you) can send payments in excess of your required tax bill to the Federally government as a gift. Instead of forcing taxpayers to pony up more money, why don’t create movement to give more than you owe to the IRS. You can set the example by giving 20% over your tax bill to the IRS. Put your money where your mouth is.

Mike Hunt

Bubba Bob

November 12th, 2010
3:48 pm

When has Pelosi fought for me? She’s forcing legislation down my throat that forces me to buy something even if I don’t want it. She’s also leading the charge to spend money we don’t have. That’s not fighting for me.

Bubba Bob

November 12th, 2010
3:49 pm

Granny,

Krugman wants us to spend, spend, spend. If he were such a genius he’d have seen this coming like tons of common folk did.

granny godzilla

November 12th, 2010
3:54 pm

Sorry, boys, but y’all are as wrong about the economy as ever.

Conservative economic policies have nearly ruined this nation…..

Have a great weekend….I know I’m going to.

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
3:56 pm

In all fairness, granny, there was nothing “conservative” about the Republican controlled congress under Bush.

Nothing Is Free

November 12th, 2010
3:56 pm

Go Nancy!!!!!!

She has been VERY good for the Republicans.

I would hate to see that end.

Tony

November 12th, 2010
3:57 pm

By ALL means, keep perpetrating the idea that the Demodummies need to keep Nancy Pelosi…..she just cost her own party control of the House and lost her job as a result. Maybe in 2012 her polarizing viewpoints and her socialistic liberal ideas will cost her party the Presidency and the Senate as well, while all the rest of you libs hide your heads in the sand and say “Oh, no, it wasn’t ME!

markie mark

November 12th, 2010
4:03 pm

Please keep Pelosi….she is the perfect poster child for the Liberal San Fran elite club….her personal life and actions vs what she wants to legislate for the rest of us….well, its almost an unfair advantage for us…..

oedipus

November 12th, 2010
4:10 pm

i love pelosi she’s got cajones galore….

Gator Joe

November 12th, 2010
4:15 pm

Cynthia,
Speaker Pelosi, has what the Republicans, and some Democrats in the House lack, courage. The Republicans are prepared to take care of the very wealthy, while adding 700 billion to the debt. They do offer 100 billion in spending cuts, though, which would come at the expense of children, the poor, and the unemployed (or soon to become poorer). Sadly they don’t contribute to the Republicans what Big Business and the wealthy contribute. Speaker Pelosi proudly represents the interests of children, the poor, minorities and the environment, while Republicans continue to represent the interests of big corporations and the very wealthy.

Drew

November 12th, 2010
4:17 pm

Anyone who believes that the wealthiest 2% of Americans should keep the $700 billion they “earned” – earned, I suppose, by leeching it off the rest of us who work for a living – should identify where they plan to cut the budget, so at least the reduction in revenue will be met by a reduction in spending. It will also be nice to know what, exactly, they believe is less important that protect the rights of millionaires to buy another yacht. Special education? Food stamps? Unemployment insurance? I’d really like to know.

The Republicans never bothered with that analysis when they passed the Bush tax cuts – thus the hundreds of billions of deficit spending every year of the Bush Administration – nor do I see them doing it now. I thought you conservatives were concerned about the deficit and the debt. Yet here you are, arguing for $700 billion more of it.

Nothing Is Free

November 12th, 2010
4:19 pm

oedipus

- -i love pelosi she’s got cajones galore….- -

Damn right. Who else would have the cajones to hire lobbyists to get laws changed so her multi- million dollar golf course could legally dump dangerous chemicals into the ground water.

Who else would have the cajones to claim to support unions but have union reps physically thrown off her land when they were trying to organize her vineyard workers.

Who else would have the cajones to own part of a restaurant chain called Piatti that employes over 900 employees, but are not union.

There are so, so many more examples of her cajones, but if I list too many, she may lose support in the liberal left and as a Republican, I certainly don’t want that.

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
4:20 pm

Okay, Gator Joe and Drew, what do you propose? Should government go to the wealthy and say “I’m terribly sorry, but we feel that you do not deserve your own wealth, so we are going to take it from you and give it to someone else. Oh, and if you refuse, we’re hauling you off to jail.” Would that make you happy?

Jeez, I can’t believe how willing some of you are to give this country over to an all-powerful police-state authoritarian government.

Nothing Is Free

November 12th, 2010
4:21 pm

70 billion, folks.

READ THE ARTICLE.

it will take ten years along with the economy completely sucking like it is now for the 700 billion to accumulate.

I have more faith in my country than that.

Bernice Dennis

November 12th, 2010
4:22 pm

Whom much is given much is expected-scripture.

Nothing Is Free

November 12th, 2010
4:23 pm

Good Grief

They will be the first people who blame the moving of businesses overseas on Republicans.

Democrats:

Hey rich people, we hate you, we hate you , we hate you, we hate you . . . WHERE ARE YOU GOING?

ATF

November 12th, 2010
4:27 pm

According to a Pew Research study, more than 50% of American do not want the tax cuts for the wealthy to be extended. What all of us who agree need to do is send an email to Isakson, Chambliss, and whoever is your House rep. Those who don’t agree, just ignore this little note.

Scout

November 12th, 2010
4:30 pm

Cynthia:

Too bad most Democrats don’t agree with you. What party are you in now? Marijuana Baggers?

Nothing Is Free

November 12th, 2010
4:30 pm

ATF

What does the Pew research center say about the percentage of people that didn’t want the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act passed?

BlahBlahBlah

November 12th, 2010
4:34 pm

FWIW, a 2 year extension does not cost $700 billion.

Nothing Is Free

November 12th, 2010
4:34 pm

ATF

Can I depend on you to write to Isakson, Chambliss, and whoever is your House rep? We really need to get rid of that piece of garbage.

Scout

November 12th, 2010
4:37 pm

Headline: “Pelosi: ‘We Didn’t Lose Because of Me’.”

Well they sure didn’t WIN because of you !!!

Drew

November 12th, 2010
4:38 pm

Aw, GG. You’re so precious. Every government in history has had the power to tax, and only extremists like you are unable to distinguish between the exercise of that power and an “all-powerful police-state authoritarian” state.

Yes, I’d like the government to tax, and I’d like it to tax such that, over time, the revenue raised from those taxes is equal to the amount spent on government services. I’d like to think that everyone supports that. But as Republicans have demonstrated time and again, they’d much rather spend, spend, spend, and not bother with the unpleasant reality of taxes, deficits, and debts.

calvinb

November 12th, 2010
4:48 pm

C.T. the insane people don’t listen to logic. Nancy passed progressive democratic programs. for that the Repbub-Tea-bigots want to get rid of her. she is the most effective leader since Sam Rayburn and has a lot of enemies. They want an Rep to run the Democrratic party. I hope that does not happen. The rewarded Bohmer and Mcconnel for messing everything up. so people will have to be happy with the ruin we will have!!!

andygrdzki

November 12th, 2010
4:54 pm

Yes, some people are born with silver spoons in their mouths, but some have made it the old fashion way… called hard work….
I really don’t understand why you think the wealthy should pay higher taxes? Are you all that jealous because of your own failures? You are in dead end jobs with little chance for advancement?
How did these people become wealthy? Perhaps they studied harder in school? Perhaps they had an inner drive? Perhaps they had an inner vision of where they wanted to go? Perhaps they sacrificed more to become wealthy? Perhaps they have a better work ethic?
Let’s see, a CEO of a company earns $5 million a year. They put in long hours; they make major business decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their workers; they employ people and they are responsible to a board of directors. If they fail to perform, they are out of a job, and that is know in the industry… Now let’s look at an lower paid worker, they work their 8 hours and go home; they don’t make major business decisions; they blog on the computer during the day; they do very little to improve their lot in life; they don’t attend school at night or on the weekends, for it conflicts with their free time; on and on and on…..
So you want to punish the wealthy, because of your failures? Did you earn advance degrees? WHAT DID YOU DO? Not much, but you sure complain about others that have…….

kayaker 71

November 12th, 2010
4:59 pm

I have said it before and it bears repeating. There is not one of you whining liberals on this blog that would not give their left nut/ovary to trade places with a wealthy person. It’s penis envy, nothing more.

George P. Burdell

November 12th, 2010
5:02 pm

Since the government supplies money, they don’t actually have to tax anybody and they can still pay the bills. This however would naturally lead to high inflation as more money went into the private sector to spend on goods and services. Taxes serve two useful purposes. One, they remove money from the system counteracting what would otherwise be price inflation. Two, they do provide some power to provide incentives/disincentives in behavior for society as a whole. Unfortunately, we are at a point where taxes are used as political power to reward/punish certain constituents or buy votes. Both parties are so deep in it now that, if it was not such a serious problem, it would almost be amusing to see all the bickering back and forth.

James

November 12th, 2010
5:10 pm

Fundamental liberal thought process is that the pie cannot be grown- it can only be redistributed. If you currently have a larger slice of the pie, then you must have stole it. Taxes, within a normalized distribution of up to 43% have no coorelation to economic growth. Fine- raise taxes- but Pelosi- are you capable of providing transparent legislation that is not festering special interests and your on self interests?

Mike K.

November 12th, 2010
5:30 pm

I find it interesting that, to liberals, reducing the amount of money that the government takes from a person constitutes “giving” that person a benefit. Liberals seem to believe that a person’s income ultimately belongs to the governments and that the portion of that income the government allows a person to keep is a “gift”.

Also, income tax rates neither create or destroy jobs in the long run; they affect productivity rates not employment rates. That the Speaker (soon-to-be former Speaker) would make a statement about the supposed impact of income tax rates on jobs simply demonstrates her economic ignorance.

Libby

November 12th, 2010
5:41 pm

Here’s another reason – makes Republicans look even better!

Good Grief

November 12th, 2010
5:48 pm

Drew – The same could be said of liberals. All they do is spend. Now, I’m not an extremist, unless you consider anyone who does not conform with one of the two major parties an extremist. I agree that government has the power to tax, but what I’ve heard suggested here is not just taxation, but pure confiscation of individual wealth. I have no problem with taxation, and I have no problem with people who make more money paying more in taxes. To that end, please note that the top 0.1% of tax payers (by income) paid nearly 18% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% pay a mere 3.3% of income taxes. But your right, let’s milk the rich for even more, I’m sure they love handing their money over knowing that there is absolutely no return coming from it.

Drew

November 12th, 2010
6:16 pm

“what I’ve heard suggested here is not just taxation, but pure confiscation of individual wealth.”

What you’ve heard is Nancy Pelosi calling for the tax rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans to be returned to what they were in the 1990s. Which is higher than what you would like, and apparently, anything higher than that is “all-powerful police-state authoritarian” or, as here, “pure confiscation of individual wealth.” Pretending that a marginal rate of 35% is fine but 39.5% is Stalinism is rather extreme. But maybe you didn’t mean quite what you wrote.

The simple fact is that the long-term budget is not balanced. If the Republicans want to forgo another $700 billion in revenue so that the wealthiest 2% of America can buy more candy for their own little Paris Hiltons, that’s their choice; but it would be irresponsible of them not to at least suggest what will be cut services so that young Paris can have her designer puppy and matching Gucci purse. Or, if they don’t want to cut services, which working-class laborer will pay a higher sales tax on their Wal-Mart brand jeans so that old Mr. Hilton can buy those platinum cufflinks he’s had his eye on.

Someone has to pay. The question is who. Contra your assertion that “all they do is spend,” Pelosi’s said who she thinks should pay; now maybe Boehner and his acolytes should do the same. Who do they think should shoulder the loss of that $700 billion?

barking frog

November 12th, 2010
6:26 pm

Pelosi is a plus for the Democrats and a
huge minus for the Republicans. She is a
winner with many people who now have
Healthcare or the prospect of it. This will
increase as the HCR is expanded.