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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.
saywhat?
November 12th, 2010
6:30 pm
Nobody is asking only the rich to pay higher taxes. EVERYBODY will pay 3% more on income over $250,000. EVERYBODY. Even the homeless.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 12th, 2010
7:47 pm
No, here’s why the Republican Party needs Nasty Pelosi, hahahahaha.
Aahhh, just sayin…
Tommy Maddox
November 12th, 2010
8:44 pm
Quoting Eugene Robinson? LOL!!!
huh???
November 12th, 2010
8:45 pm
OK lets just tax all rich people that are named Nancy AND live in California
well duh
November 12th, 2010
9:10 pm
andygrdzki
November 12th, 2010
4:54 pm
Yes, some people are born with silver spoons in their mouths(raise death taxes to 75% over 5 million)
but some have made it the old fashion way… called hard work(lower hard work taxes to 5%(define HARD work))….
I really don’t understand why you think the wealthy should pay higher taxes? (because they have more money)
Are you all that jealous because of your own failures? Nope
You are in dead end jobs with little chance for advancement? Nope see offshoring and H1b issue
How did these people become wealthy? tax breaks for the wealthy
Perhaps they studied harder in school? Nope too busy partying with frat brothers
Perhaps they had an inner drive? more like a better putter
Perhaps they had an inner vision of where they wanted to go? seeing things from all the beer eh
Perhaps they sacrificed more to become wealthy? Some did some earned it the old fashioned way(from daddy)
Perhaps they have a better work ethic? yep 72 holes in 1 day is rough
Let’s see, a CEO of a company earns $5 million a year. at least plus bonuses and perks
They put in long hours; they make major business decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their workers(yep whether to send the factory to China or Mexico) (wether to offshore caal center and IT to India or Pakistan)
they employ people (no the company does) and they are responsible to a board of directors(golf buddies)
If they fail to perform, they are out of a job, (with a golden parachute) and that is know in the industry (that is why the will end up as CEO at some other company)
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…(WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)….
Chris Sanchez
November 12th, 2010
9:53 pm
Here’s why the GOP WANTS Democrats to keep Pelosi:
1) GOP +6 Senate seats
2) GOP +60 House seats
3) GOP + 7 Governorships
4) GOP +680 State Legislative seats
I agree with you Ms Tucker. Democrats need Pelosi. And she ain’t bad for the GOP either!
TnGelding
November 12th, 2010
10:01 pm
$700 billion? Only a small fraction of what it’s going to cost for the rest of us. But we can “afford” that? Good grief, get real! Let the irresponsible and fairy tale changes expire!
TnGelding
November 12th, 2010
10:03 pm
The Democrats need Pelosi….to retire! And Reid needs to be replaced as leader in the Senate.
TGT
November 12th, 2010
11:06 pm
Finally–I completely agree with Ms. Tucker. The Dems need Pelosi…and so do the Republicans…and so does the rest of America. In fact, given the results of the last election, they may not be anything that the country needs more than for Nancy Pelosi to remain a face of today’s Democrat party.
TGT
November 12th, 2010
11:08 pm
excuse me: “there may not be…”
Paddy O
November 12th, 2010
11:37 pm
The government, under the Pelosi/Reid/Obama triangle, has an insatiable appetite for peoples $$. Why? Because it makes them, and their “manage but never solve poverty” Harvard/Yale MBA buddies, wealthy. If Pelosi would discuss shrinking the government, which is what a responsible person in her position should do, and grow the economy (we have a zombie, service sector heavy economy – which will not grow – how many maids & waitresses retire at 55? Or have any type of good benefits?). We need to toss NAFTA and begin to acrue revenue from import tariffs, as initially envisioned by Washington. Does NASA serve a purpose? Is HHS given too much $$$? How about the Dept of Education? Could we not terminate Homeland Security? Fold it into the DoD. Our elite have stated that the children of illegal immigrants must be educated by the citizens – why? We are at a tipping point where we can no longer (due to the loss of our manufacturing sector) afford to subsidize all these zero skilled people, from foreign countries.
Mid-South Philosopher
November 13th, 2010
5:22 am
I am telling you folks….the more I hear about this potential stand-off between President Obama and the newly empowered House Republicans (Tea Party or Corporatist), the more I am convinced that higher taxes are in all our futures!
The President will veto any tax bill that extends the Bush tax cuts for all you wealthy people. The Republicans (Tea Party or Corporatist) will not pass a tax bill that extends those tax cuts to ONLY the middle class. The President will say, “Look at what the Republicans have done!” The Republicans (Tea Party or Corporatist) will say, “Look at what the President has done!” And all the while, the middle and working poor classes will be enjoying the sensual pleasure of the “tax shaft”!
The truth is that it is NOT in the DNA of ANY politician to favor low taxes!
waldo
November 13th, 2010
5:41 am
I can’t help but wonder why you hate the poor and love the rich when 99.9% of you are neither? You don’t know anyone in either group yet profess to know all about them, strange. Then again the addicted here seem to know everything about anything.
Lil' Barry Bailout
November 13th, 2010
6:25 am
“those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs”
————————-
How many jobs did they “save” though? How many “lives touched?
Using Pelosi’s idiotic line of thinking, I guess we could say that the Idiot Messiah’s $800 billion surplus INCREASED unemployment.
Orange10
November 13th, 2010
6:47 am
Sure! A failing party needs a failing leader.
Bob
November 13th, 2010
7:23 am
So if two people are married and each have more than 125K of taxable income, according to dems, they are Billionaires and millionaires. That is how dems claim we are better off under them, they call us millionaires and pat themselves on the back.
gator24
November 13th, 2010
7:41 am
Why are some people continually opining for the rich and powerful who hide their wealth off shore as not to pay taxes. How can you cut spending, reduce the deficit and balance the budget without taxes. The vast majority in this is not rich, only 2 percent are. For all these people who think they should keep all their money and not pay taxes, then the federal government should stop helping to fund all these projects in their community. Let all their infrastructure go to crap. I mean no improvement in water and sewer systems or bridges,interstate highways or any other structure maintain for the good of the public. They HCR will only help minorities and not majority. My goodness there is so much stupidity in this country when it comes to solving America problems.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 13th, 2010
7:47 am
Three heads are better than two to scare the American people with in 2012.
Reed, Pelosi and obozo, eewwwwww!
Moderate Line
November 13th, 2010
7:52 am
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.”
+++++++++++
Some how fighting for a tax on people who make $250,000 is fighting for the middle class. I don’t think so. Sounds to much like class war fare. I am not opposed to increasing taxes but it has nothing to do with fighting for the middle class. I believ ALL americans can benefit from a balance budget.
Fighting for the middle class would be creating jobs which neither the stimulus or tax cuts have done allot to improve. Fighting for the middle class would be lowering health care cost.
carlosgvv
November 13th, 2010
7:58 am
The more the Republicans hysterically trash Nancy, the more I will support here.
Joe
November 13th, 2010
8:05 am
Cynthia – WHY ARE YOU SUCH A SKANK???
Moderate Line
November 13th, 2010
8:10 am
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.
+++++++++
The same logic was used for the great society programs and what happen to Johnson?
Moderate Line
November 13th, 2010
8:28 am
Defense spending in 20% of the budget, social security is 20% and medicare is 12%. Interest on the debt is around 7%. Medicaid is 7.7%. We are up to 50% of untouchables for the Rep and only 38% for Dems.
Dave from GT
November 13th, 2010
8:43 am
Joe – how did you know ?
After Jan 1, 2011 Pelosi is irrelavant.
After Jan 1, 2011 Obama is neutered.
After Jan 1, 2011 The traitor Reid can crawl under the Nevada desert rock he came from !
Here is a simple concept – spending less will not reduce the debt…. unless the govt takes in more than it spends, and the balance is used to pay down the debt.
If the balance does not cover interest, then the debt principal remains in place ! In this case, the govt must take in even more…….. assuming that they don’t just print it !
Let’s assume they don’t just print it……. then your taxes are going up……. pretty simple, huh? The debate is who’s taxes go up more?
Lets assume that they print it….. then your consumer prices are going up…… and you are moving toward a Chinese like wage.
I think the govt will do both…… in the short term.
Here is another fact that is hard to ignore: If we don’t make stuff that we can sell to others (outside the US) for more that it costs to make – all of this discussion is irrelevant ! Problem is, people like Pelosi can’t fathom this concept.
So does anyone really NEED Pelosi?
Mongo
November 13th, 2010
9:06 am
The Dems need bring up a clean bill to extend the full tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000 a year and let the Repubs publicly vote against it. Let the American people see where these corporate toadies really stand.
Jack
November 13th, 2010
9:12 am
Let’s all become 2 percenters & live happily ever-after. But then, that might not work; we’d have nothing to whine about.
Del,
November 13th, 2010
9:28 am
Every time Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth she embarrasses herself and the Democrats, so Republicans are probably delighted that she’ll return as minority leader. Extending tax cuts for those earning above 250K will only amount to 2% of the federal budget, so this stupidity coming out of Obama’s mouth that raising taxes on the wealthy prevents serious impact on the deficit is bunk. Additional bunk is this myth that the majority of Americans favor raising taxes on those earning above 250K. The blue state of Washington recently shot down Initiative 1098 65-35 which would have imposed an additional 1% tax on the top 2%. Americans recognize that we have a serious lack of jobs issue and know that it would be foolish at this time to impose additional tax burdens on those who create the jobs. Of course the far-left lackey’s in the W.H., congress and media don’t get it and never will.
Nothing Is Free
November 13th, 2010
9:28 am
gator24
While $250K a year might seem a lot down there in the trailer park, for people making a house payment and a couple of car payments, it’s not that much.
Nothing Is Free
November 13th, 2010
9:31 am
carlosgvv
You should be supporting “here”.
Here is a bold woman. The perfect democrat.
Having the bat eyed dingbat at the helm of the democrats should do the trick rather well for the Republicans going into the 2012 elections.
GO NANCY!!!
Dave R.
November 13th, 2010
9:36 am
I find it amazing that after 2 years of ignoring EVERY poll out there that showed the American public against the Democrat agenda, the best thing that Cynthia can do is quote a poll (no specifics, mind you) that the Democrats SHOULD listen to.
NOW our opinion matters, Cynthia?
Pathetic doesn’t even come close to describing you.
Dave R.
November 13th, 2010
9:42 am
Here’s a compromise that Republicans and Democrats should live with:
Make the tax rates (they are no longer tax cuts, but current rates) for those making $250k / year permanent, and extend the rate for those above that level for three more years. That way, a new Congress and new administration (hopefully) can make a decision without an election staring them in the face.
Nothing Is Free
November 13th, 2010
9:44 am
From FOX this morning:
Pelosi is assured of remaining Democratic party leader when the new Congress convenes in January under a Republican majority. She has drawn no opposition for the post even though several members of the rank and file have said they would prefer she step aside after historic election losses. The GOP gained at least 60 seats in midterm elections, more than enough to return to power after a four-year absence.
FANDAMNTASTIC!!!!!
My only problem is if Hillary beats Obama (which she will with no problem) the dims lose the plantation vote and down goes the ship. There is no way they can beat anyone without that 96% of Blacks voting the same way.
I like the Republicans but there needs to be some sort of opposition. With the way things are going, there will probably be a Black Party spin-off from the dims and maybe even a far left (Marxism) spin off. The fact that the dims are putting the dingbat back in office shows they are falling apart and have no idea what to do except fold their arms and stand their ground.
We will be sure to play taps while the ship is going under the waves.
interesting
November 13th, 2010
10:31 am
Paddy O@11:37 pm
The government, under the Pelosi/Reid/Obama triangle, has an insatiable appetite for peoples $$. Why? Because it makes them, and their “manage but never solve poverty” Harvard/Yale MBA buddies, wealthy. If Pelosi would discuss shrinking the government, which is what a responsible person in her position should do, and grow the economy (we have a zombie, service sector heavy economy – which will not grow – how many maids & waitresses retire at 55? Or have any type of good benefits?). We need to toss NAFTA and begin to acrue revenue from import tariffs, as initially envisioned by Washington. Does NASA serve a purpose? Is HHS given too much $$$? How about the Dept of Education? Could we not terminate Homeland Security? Fold it into the DoD. Our elite have stated that the children of illegal immigrants must be educated by the citizens – why? We are at a tipping point where we can no longer (due to the loss of our manufacturing sector) afford to subsidize all these zero skilled people, from foreign countries.
————————————-
I agree
But would take an addition few steps. SEND ALL H!b visa holders home. The countries that we have imported these workers from WILL NOT allow our people the same agreements.Plus I am not certain they have been paing their full taxes while they are here.
Revoke MFN status of China. Trade war be damned (how many products produced there do we NEED)
Change the tax rates slightly as needed to bring cuts (cut first) and revenues into agreement. (Bill Clinton was able to create a surplus doing this REMEMBER).
ALL government workers salaries to be adjusted to the private sector equilivant (including benefits).
ALL government contractors will be citizens of the USA (IBM, TATA, etc. hire mostly INDIAN workers even on government assignments (see OHIO laws)).
The giveaways to any and all corporate entities must end. If a company needs to go bankrupt so be it. There are reorganization laws that will rid these companies of the upper management that has caused the problem. NOT reward them.
Pass laws that state that NO private information (health, account numbers, SS#’s) be assessible from a foreign call center (or help center, etc). This is a recipe for identity theft if I ever heard one.
Del,
November 13th, 2010
11:02 am
interesting,
I agree professionally I was once close to the growing importation of foreign I.T. workers. I wouldn’t send all H1-B workers back but I would advocate dramatic restrictions. The visa that bothers me the most is the L-1 that allows multi-national corporations to bring in workers from their foreign based operations into the United States for up to 7 years. Many are brought into supervisory and senior management positions. This work visa is greatly abused and amounts to pay offs to foreign governments for opening up markets for products and services. Globalization has really hurt us.
Gerrymander Clyburn
November 13th, 2010
11:26 am
Please Nancy stay!!! The second biggest reason conservstives are in control of the house. Stay Nancy stay!!!
interesting
November 13th, 2010
11:31 am
Del@11:02 am
There are too many abuses in the H1b visa program as it stands. Companies are allowed to use these visa holders even if a qaulified US citizen is available (no enforcement of law), Falsified references/education suspect (all Indian companies or universities). Recruiting companies only paying lowest rates (geared toward H1b).
Companies are advertising for experienced IT professionals for a 6 mth contract in Lowell Mass at 25 per hr. (per diem rate is 22.50 hr). Contractors are being expected to MOVE for 6 mth contracts at their OWN expense. Does this sound like anyone who has a family can do this for these rates?
The rates are like this to steer the jobs to the H1b visa holders and fulfill the H1b recruitment laws. ALSO a large number of recruiters are INDIAN. (English is not their best lanquage) are they also H1b visa holders?
ONLY the best should be allowed to obtain these visa, not just the cheapest.
When corporations can afford multimillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes for executives. I have zero sympathy for them or THEIR tax rates. They have not CREATED jobs they have COST the USA a hugh number of productive jobs and people.
Del,
November 13th, 2010
11:41 am
interesting,
I understand the pain. The government has had a lot to do with creating this mess. Politicians with insufficient business knowledge negotiating trade agreements in this so called global economy have caused a serious imbalance with developing countries like China and India.
HOHOHO
November 13th, 2010
11:42 am
To ALL that are going shopping for the holidays today BUY AMERICAN MADE PRODUCTS.
False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR)
November 13th, 2010
12:39 pm
CT – you are right about Nancy!! Whether or not you agree with her policies, this nation’s history will reflect on the impact of her effective leadership as one of the most accomplished Speaker of the House. If she were ineffective, we would not see such fear of her coming from the righties.
GO NANCY GO!!!
PALIN/BACHMANN 2012!!!
frozen brains
November 13th, 2010
1:38 pm
PALIN/QUAYLE 2012
Dan Quayle with the pony tail and Dan Quayle are the perfect combo to win the great state of Washington DC
Zoey
November 13th, 2010
2:03 pm
The democrats need Pelosi like the Calvary needs Custer.
frozen brains
November 13th, 2010
3:07 pm
Zoey@2:03 pm
The democrats need Pelosi like the Calvary needs Custer.
LOL very good. But are we the people the soldiers or the indians LOL
JKL2
November 13th, 2010
3:58 pm
I thinks it’s more like the Dems deserve Pelosi. We know how you like a good loser, because it’s just not fair to discriminate against ineptness.
tscali
November 13th, 2010
4:44 pm
sure nancy fights for the middle class. she’s generous in her giving to the high museum of art and the san francisco symphony. not so generous with the girl’s and boy’s club of america.
yeah, nancy cares about the middle class about as much as i care about nancy. which is not at all.
TnGelding
November 13th, 2010
7:38 pm
Moderate Line
November 13th, 2010
8:28 am
But SS and Medicare are fully funded and the “trust funds” have been buying military equipment for 27 years. What about a tax of a dollar a bullet to fund the Pentagon?
TnGelding
November 13th, 2010
7:40 pm
Which is it, the 2-percenters or the small businesspeople creating the jobs?