Pelosi Adds 200 Million To The Population
Feb 4, 2009 Political
On January 24th Nancy Pelosi was asked if the stimulus bill was going to fast and if it would be ready by the President’s Day recess. Pelosi explained that there was no time to waste and that each month it is delayed 500 million people lose their jobs.
There are only about 306 million people in this country and roughly 127 million have jobs. It is mathematically impossible for more people to lose jobs than the number of people that exist. Maybe she is including the people from the extra eight states that Barack Obama found when he was campaigning (I’ve been to 57 states and have one left to go).
I am sure she meant to say 500 thousand. But thousand is such a small number when one is use to working with million, billions, and now trillions. Pelosi made the mistake because a million is not a big number to her. This is why we have problems with government spending; politicians have no concept of the size of things.
I have written before about how big a trillion is and this package, if passed, will cost more than a trillion dollars once the interest is figured in. The Senate has it up to 900 billion without interest.
I read today that if you spent a million dollars a day since the day Jesus was born the amount of money would not reach the amount of the stimulus package. The total would be around 734 Billion dollars which is below any number given for the package.
While I might concede that Pelosi probably made a mistake because she could not possibly be that stupid, I have to admit that since she believes that spending money on birth control will stimulate the economy, one cannot rule out stupidity.
The whole Obama administration and this Democratic majority has been a comedy carnival.
By this time next year the Democrats will be on the verge of a nervous breakdown and Obama will have a full head of gray hair. He will probably be smoking 2 packs a day trying to figure out why he can’t just shout Hope and Change and get things done.
This guy is a rookie and he is making rookie mistakes. He is in way over his head (Pelosi has been in way over her head since she got to Congress) but most of his supporters won’t figure that out for a year or so, if at all.
By then Hope and Change will be replaced by Depression and Despair.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 500 million, census, lost jobs, Obama, Pelosi, population
Queen Pelosi’s Definition Of Bipartisan
Jan 6, 2009 Political
Nancy Pelosi has a strange definition of bipartisan. To most thinking people, it relates to TWO parties and when used in this context means they will work together. Nancy Pelosi and her brood of Democrats all claimed that the Republicans ignored them and they claimed that George Bush had not worked with them on anything. This despite the fact that Bush tried to reach out to them only to be slapped down. After crying about how partisan the Republicans are, Pelosi said:
“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.” ABC
First of all, it is hard to hold them accountable because as soon as they screw up or get blamed for something they point at President Bush. He gets blamed for everything. Pelosi said the Democrats had nothing to do with the economic problems when they were largely responsible. Obama said Bush was to blame for everything when he campaigned (now his moonbat followers are accusing him of being like Bush) and Harry Reid said Bush was the worst president ever even though his approval rating is better than Congresses’. No, you can’t pin blame on them because they always have an excuse.
Then there was that part about being more bipartisan. As I pointed out, bipartisan means that each party has some say in the matters and that all opinions will be taken into consideration. It means that the majority is looking to partner with the minority to help solve problems. Like when Republicans wrote new rules after they took control in 1994. They included the minority party in the deliberations. They refused to exercise the nuclear option so that Democrats could still have a say. I warned at that time that if the Democrats ever took control they would not be so generous.
And of course, I was right.
Queen Nancy Pelosi of “more bipartisan” fame will introduce new rules for the House that exclude Republicans from the process.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi’s rule changes — which may be voted on today — will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” Human Events
She will rewrite rules to keep Republicans from having any influence. I want someone to tell me how this is bipartisan. I want this 68 year old washed up Botox queen to tell me how this is working together. Maybe she has her granny panties in a wad because she will not be the top Democrat in DC. Make room for Daddy O.
This is nothing more than her attempt to ensure that Obama gets everything that he wants and that he will face little opposition. It is designed to make Americans think that the sainted one’s stuff is passing though easily because he is wonderful and everyone agrees. She did this to keep Republicans from screwing Obama the way the Democrats have screwed George Bush for the last eight years. She also did this so that Republicans would not be able to oppose the huge stimulus package that will surely include billions of dollars in pork. She does not want Republicans blocking the increased spending that the Democrats want. Trillions of dollars are at stake and Nancy can’t let it slip away.
If she thinks this will lead to more bipartisan cooperation then she is smoking some of those left handed cigarettes her state is famous for. This will tick off the Republicans who will find ways to cause gridlock.
If we can get the Senate Republicans to stick together then we can keep everything from passing. We can hold up cabinet appointments as well as judicial nominations. Our Senate should hold EVERYTHING up until the House agrees to rules that are fair to Republicans. The Senate Republicans need to work together in order to force the House to play nice or nothing gets done.
I am all in favor of gridlock. Let’s keep Obama’s plans from going through and let’s make sure nothing is rubber stamped. Let’s make sure McCain and the other RINOs keep their heads in the game and keep the Democrats from running roughshod over the country.
Keep an eye on them because any Republican than helps the Democrats out should be targeted in the next election. Even if it means we have a smaller presence we need to get rid of non conservatives.
The Democrats need to have as much control right now, without giving them total power, so that they have to make all the decisions. Then EVERYTHING is their fault (or their success). They can only get so much mileage out of blaming Bush before it gets old. They said they needed a bigger majority and they got it. Nancy said give them that and hold them accountable and that is what we should do.
We need to hold their pork laden little feet to the fire until we can boot them out of office.
Bipartisan? I am not surprised. This is a woman who thinks that murdering children in the womb is a choice.
To hell with her and the Democrats. And I mean that in the most bipartisan way possible.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: bipartisan, Democrats, nuclear option, Pelosi, Republicans, rules change
Democrats Believe In Politics Before Country
Oct 11, 2008 Political
The Democrats in DC are already planning on an Obama win and they will waste no time in spending taxpayer money. Instead of wating until Obama takes office, Speaker Pelosi indicated that she would call the House back into session after the election to pass legislation that might be political suicide should they attempt to pass if prior to the November 4th election.
The legislation includes spending another 150 BILLION dollars on an economic stimulus package. Read this as another income redistribution scheme just like the last one where very few people who actually pay taxes received money back. A large part of the money went to people who pay little or no taxes while those who pay the country’s bills received little or no money.
This 150 BILLION dollars is money the country would have to borrow and is on top of the more than 700 BILLION dollars Congress allocated to pay for the misdeeds on Wall Street. Obama has been in discussions with Pelosi with regard to this and is “monitoring the situation.”
Additionally, Obama has expressed interest in providing states with 25 BILLION dollars to make ends meet (and you know every state will have a hand out amounting to one and a quarter TRILLION dollars). The One also wants to allocate 25 BILLION dollars for roads, bridges and other infrastructure and 65 BILLION in tax rebates. The 65 BILLION dollars would be paid out from a windfall tax on oil company profits.
The One will not even be president and Congress will be spending money that we do not have and they will be stifling the oil companies by overly taxing their profits. Income redistribution amounts to Socialism and the Democrats will not even wait until their president is in charge before they take us further down that road.
Many of these spending measures were thwarted when Pelosi was unable to add them to the bailout bill which was heavily laden with pork.
If these things were urgent then Pelosi would recall Congress before the elections but she knows that Americans are not happy about all the money spent bailing out Wall Street and that even more spending could be disastrous for vulnerable Democrats (those in more conservative districts) therefore she will wait until after the election because by then it will be too late for voters to take their anger out at the polls.
This is nothing more than cowardice. If the items are that important then she should be able to sell them to the public and not have to worry about backlash at the polls. Instead she will wait until her Democrats are protected from an election and then do what she wants, public be damned.
This should be a warning to all Americans. Do not vote for the incumbents. Do not put Obama in office. If these people are so willing to spend our money this recklessly before their president gets in office think about how they will spend when they do not have to worry about a presidential veto.
Get rid of all of them.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: cowardice, Obama, Pelosi, tax and spend
Democrats Rangel With Racial Politics
Sep 17, 2008 Political
I have heard, time and again, that people who do not vote for Obama are racists. It does not matter if you are 100% opposed to his political ideologies, if you don’t vote for him you are a racist. Not only are you a racist but you are denying the black community what they deserve. A female reporter named Fatimah Ali even says that it will cause a race war if people do not vote for Obama. I guess she thinks once you go Barack you never go back. She actually made the race war comment in a previous column. This week, after a few redneck crackers sent her emails, she is sure we are already in a race war.
I have little concern for this. I hardly see how 12% of the population could effect damage on 55% of it so a war in the traditional sense is probably not likely but I imagine there will be violence. If Obama wins there will be riots in celebration and if he loses there will be riots of anger. Either way cities will look like the Rodney King verdict all over again. Before you call me racist, I am merely expanding on what Ali wrote.
The Democrats and the black community (I know, redundant) are not afraid to point out any instance of perceived racism. They are so good at it they can listen to every day words and decide that they are racist code words for black people. I know that there will be some people who do not vote for Obama because he is black just as there are some people who will not vote for McCain because of his age. I hesitate to say that the 90% black vote for Obama has racist undertones because any Democrat, regardless of color, gets at least 90% of the vote. But there are definitely racial issues in the black community.
Charlie Rangel has been cooking his personal financial books for many years. His tax evasion and ethical violations have recently come to light and he is facing some serious problems. He was asked by Speaker Pelosi to step down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (though Pelosi says she did not discuss it with him). Pelosi has a bit of a problem because even if she wanted to remove him she can’t.
The Congressional Black Caucus has put its support 100% behind Rangel and they will not allow him to be removed. This caucus has so much power that one member said “”Nancy won’t challenge us on this, even if she wants to.”
Now, here is a man who has broken any number of laws, infractions that would land us in jail, and the Black Caucus thinks that he should keep his position. These people must feel that it is perfectly OK for a person to break the law so long as he is black (and a Democrat). If Rangel were white or a Republican they would be barking at the moon trying to get him removed. Is it any wonder that people view the black groups with contempt? They expect justice unless one of their own is involved.
I guess we can chalk this up to affirmative action which seems to be playing big on the national spotlight. Obama is the affirmative action candidate and Rangel is the recipient of the benefits of affirmative action.
He won’t be removed from his position and that decision is based solely on his skin color. I have a dream that one day people will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
Looks like Charlie has not had that dream yet. Good thing. If we judged him by the content of his character he would be in jail already.
Way to have that most ethical Congress Madam Speaker.
Also, Rangel was in the process of divorcing his wife of 40 years and she intimate knowledge of their finances. I believe that these disclosures came to light as a result of disclosures related to the divorce. Anyway, Rangel has called off the divorce. I think that might be so that she cannot be compelled to testify against him. This makes it even more apparent that he is guilty and knew what he was doing.
Thank Goodness we have the National Black Republican Association
Sources:
New York Times | The Crypt
Tags: black caucus, criminal, divorce, ethical, Pelosi, rangel, tax evasion
Democrat’s Failed Financial Policies Led To Meltdown
Sep 16, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has been on the campaign trail telling everyone that the failed policies of George Bush and his the Republicans are the reason for the economic problems and the financial meltdown of major investment companies. Nancy Pelosi is calling for an investigation into the crisis and she wants administration officials questioned to see why this happened and see if new regulation is needed. Pelosi is trying to make political hay with this but it will be a welcomed investigation because the Democrats are responsible for this. When she digs into which members of Congress are in the hip pockets of these companies she will see some familiar names at the top of the lists; names like Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, and Hillary Clinton.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ordered a broad, swift investigation of Wall Street and will demand testimony from Bush administration officials and captains of finance, congressional officials said.
House Democrats plan an aggressive look at the administration’s role in this weekend’s meltdown, and explore further regulation and government structures that would be taken up under the new president. Politico
Let’s be clear here. Nancy Pelosi wants Henry Waxman and Barney Frank to investigate this matter. She is trying to pin these problems on the Bush administration but the truth is the Democrats have caused this problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by Clinton cronies who received millions of dollars from the organizations. Democrats were in bed with these companies and refused to listen to George Bush when, in 2003, he “recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” [New York Times]
The same Times article states:
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
The administration recognized the problems in this industry and tried to take action to keep problems from arising. This story is from 11 September 2003 which indicates that the President was on top of this more than five years ago. Instead of working with President Bush to make this happen and provide better oversight, the issue was OPPOSED by Congressional Democrats.
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
‘‘These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said. [emphasis mine]
Let us take a look at this. Congressional Democrats opposed the plan and they were worried that it would reduce the commitment to low income, affordable housing. The problem is, this morphed into no income you can have a house anyway. The Democrats came up with plans that allowed people to buy houses they could not afford and this is why there are so many foreclosures. Add the greed of companies who wanted to make a buck (and were afraid of penalties if they denied loans) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Look at who said that the companies were not facing any kind of financial crisis. Barney Frank, the same guy Pelosi wants to look into this mess (I guess it would be wrong to say Frank will get to the bottom of it). This guy could not find his ass if his hands were in his back pockets and she wants him to investigate. I guess we know how that financial crisis issue turned out.
The last part discusses the whole poor family/affordable housing issue. I have no issue with people buying a house. I think that is a great thing to do but people should never buy more than they can afford. Democrats were so worried about helping out poor people that they failed to enact regulation (that Pelosi now calls for) that would have helped keep this meltdown from happening.
Nancy Pelosi was asked today if Democrats have any responsibility in this mess and she quickly answered “NO.” The mantra of the left is “don’t blame us for this.” Well the fact of the matter is, it is all their faults. They have been using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as ATM machines for their friends for a long time and they have been reaping the benefits of large cash donations from those very friends who controlled the companies. The Democrats opposed tighter control because they wanted to allow anyone, credit worthy or not, to buy a house and they wanted the money to flow to them and their friends.
Keep this in mind when Barack Obama (the second biggest recipient of Lehman Brothers and Fannie/Freddie money1) tells you that it is failed Republican policies that led to this. It was the Democrats who caused this problem because they refused to work with President Bush to get it solved. The President saw it and tried to put a plan in place and the Democrats decided that they would rather keep their friends and themselves rolling in dough rather than address the problem.
Now, they want you to put them in charge of everything.
Nancy Pelosi is a liar. She and her Democrats bear most of the responsibility for this. They are all squawking now and they are saying the same things over and over. They are all blaming this on the Republicans because if they say it often enough, people will believe it. They are trying to cover their tracks because they are neck deep in this mess. This could, and should, cost them the election.
Here is an idea. Instead of wasting time and money investigating this why doesn’t the Speaker launch a full scale investigation into the tax evasion of Charlie Rangel. There is some real corruption to handle. I already solved the who caused the financial problem mystery (and saved the taxpayer millions of dollars) so let’s get busy and investigate Rangel. Anyone want to bet that this jackass criminal gets reelected?
1 The figures are from 1989. John McCain has received $117,500 ($13,055/year) from Lehman Brothers since then. Barack Obama has been in the Senate for just under four years and he has received $395,600 ($98,900/year).
Tags: barney frank, corruption, democrat's failed policies, fannie mae, freddie mac, lies, Obama, Pelosi