I have never had sooo much dislike, and distrust for a politician in all my life. She has been and continues to be a disgrace to us all. For the sake of my sanity and the future of this county she needs to either step down, OD, crash a car, or something

Obama is doomed as long as she keeps going around biting and shitting on everyone and everything. She is like a defiant un-house broken mutt you just want to kick to the curb

Any reasoning behind this opinion?

I don't care to give her much more of my throughts today, but this gives you some idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/cafferty.house/index.html#cnnSTCText

Oh ya add to that every time I hear her talk...She makes too many statements that are out of touch with reality. At least when McCain did it , it was not going to cost you and me 800 BILLION!

I have never had sooo much dislike, and distrust for a politician in all my life.
Oh ya add to that every time I hear her talk...She makes too many statements that are out of touch with reality.

The solution to this problem is to skip over all written matter about her and turning down the volume on broadcast media when she's mentioned.

On the posted link:
Pellosi? I don't have to much of an opinion.


I am not exactly for the bail out bill or happy with it. My understanding though is that make much of this article is misleading or misguided because the pork although present in the bill is in reality a very small percentage. If that

forget the pork forget the stimulus, she is a freaking moron and has ZERO leadership skills, in fact all she has done is rip the congress into 2. (Offending a few die hard Dems in the process)

She will say ANYTHING even blatant miss-information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVl2nqjLVeA

DAMMIT I thought we got ride of that last A-hole after 4 years of BS, now this??????????

I'm done... time to drink....

Pelosi is as bad a politician as she is a practising Catholic. Hopefully the Pope will give her a smackdown today. Plus, how much is the tuna industry or Samoa getting in the porkulous bill. Last time she steered legislation that would benefit her husband's investments.

?????????? My post obove is three times as long as posted, but this board won't post the whole thing - tried to do it here too.
No time to play now.

I had the same problem trying to post a lengthy message. Is there a new limitation the Webmaster hasn't told us about?

There is a bug that if you type you message outside of the site and past it into the window to post and have ....... (a row of periods) it will cut off your post at the periods.

No extra periods in my post, but I'm pretty sure it is something simmillar, buried and not visible.

Anyway I took the time trying to explain what I was saying.

As an experiment, I created a ridiculously long post with excessive text and embedded pictures, much larger than anything I've ever seen here and it all took. I did not create it via cut and paste from an external window though. This post replaces that experiment which I don't want to leave on the server. The mystery continues.

I see little reason to blame Pelosi. It's not as if she has unlimited authority to twist every member to vote the way she wants without some incentives or can craft the perfect piece of legislation and still get it passed. Frankly, given the diversity of her caucus, much less the entire House, I'm amazed anything gets done at all. It makes herding cats seem like a well-organized affair.

Sure, there's stuff in the "stimulus" bill that's not stimulative. There's a relatively small amount of spending that's pork (though some of what Republicans critiqued, like making federal buildings more energy-efficient, would be both stimulative and good long-term policy). But the bill started with over 40% in tax cuts, which most economists say isn't nearly as effective as direct government spending--and Republicans still wouldn't go for it because they want still more tax cuts. Plus AMT relief was added in the Senate to get past a Republican filibuster threat, even though isn't stimulative at all. That's certainly not Pelosi's fault; blame Specter, Snowe, and Collins.

As for the single false statement you referred to, OK, she said million when she should have said thousand. Guess what: I've done that too on occasion. It was obviously not an intent to deceive, since it would be ridiculous to try to mislead people into thinking we were losing jobs each month in an amount greater than the total US population. Just like when Biden said in his VP debate about the Presidential powers in Article I when they're in Article II; he got it wrong, but that doesn't mean he was deliberately trying to mislead or doesn't know the difference.

If one doesn't like Democratic policies generally, fine. But I really don't see what Pelosi has done personally to deserve such scorn. She's not perfect, but I'm impressed that anyone can do that job.

Daniel Answer me one question honestly. Do you see Nancy as a politician that anyone should look up to?

I'm not blaming her for anything, other then being a scum of a politician that is destroying any good will that American public has towards Democrats.

IMHO she is a POS.

"I'm amazed anything gets done at all."

You do realize that over the last 6 months of government 1.5 Trillion + has been made into law to be spent? If anything they have proven they are good at spending more money then any other government in the history of the world over such a short period of time.

Deleteing the dashes, and there were two did not fix the problem.

I think she is a competent politician doing a decent job in a very tough position. She's not a shining beacon of altruism, but I'm trying to think of others in the House who might be better and no one comes readily to mind who would be a substantial improvement. It's easier to be a luminary in the Senate. But are there many people in the House that you think anyone should look up to? Plus you don't get to be Speaker by not having some sharp elbows.



Again, I appreciate the sentiment, but I question whether your posts so far justify it. I just don't see what she has done that has been so terrible. I know you criticized her during the initial bank bailout proceedings, but she delivered the votes she said she'd deliver. And it's difficult for a House member, even the speaker, who are elected district by district across the nation, to be a national leader when there was such a power vacuum left in the waning months of the Bush administration. I think there may be some messages that only a president has the power to convey.



Short answer: yes, I am aware. But that's not Pelosi. That's the party, with the support of many economists, some of whom believe that the package still isn't big enough relative to the economic crunch we're facing. If you're not a Keynesian, of course you'd object. But that's a difference of opinion on economic theory. The resulting legislation is not the fault of whomever happens to be Speaker of the House.

As an addendum, where does the 1.5 trillion + come from? The TARP funds actually bought stuff that isn't worthless, so some of that money will come back. I don't think it's fair to mix the TARP funding with the stimulus funding. (And as I recall, you supported the TARP funding.) Plus I wonder about the size of the stimulus package (throw in the TARP funds too if you want) relative to the size of the economy versus the spending that occurred under the New Deal programs; using nominal dollars may not be a fair comparison either.

"The TARP funds actually bought stuff that isn't worthless, so some of that money will come back."

Daniel,
What color is the sun in your world? A congressional oversight panel recently took a look at the first $254 billion the government spent buying shares of the big banks to keep them afloat. After six weeks of number-crunching, what did they find? The Treasury Department substantially overpaid for those assets, by a whopping $78 billion.

The panel said that in the fall, the government spent $254 billion on assets that were only worth $176 billion.
How is a net loss of 78 billion a good ROI for the taxpayer?

Sounds like the government could get $176M back. $176/$254 is more than half. That's not a bad ratio in terms of bailout if it were to work. But we will likely never know how much our fiscal responses helped or hurt.

I didn't think anyone every said or thought any bailout would be free of expense, and what Daniel wrote "TARP funds actually bought stuff that isn't worthless, so some of that money will come back.", very true according to your post.

Huh??? Return on investment is a positive outcome not a capital loss. The return on investment formula:

(Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment)/Cost of Investment

(-78 billion - 254 billion)/254 billion = -1.03071 rate of return on investment.

If the assets were overvalued you risk the ability to 1. recoup full investment monies and 2. an inadequate return on investment

I don't see how you can believe that buying overvalued assets is a positive thing mw.

The Chicago trading floor is already starting the revolt. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

It's about time.

This thread was about Pelosi and to that Daniel wrote things like

I give up! Due to post truncation!

Give up , cuz Nancy is a Beeeeatch of the highest order!!!!!

You are being nice, I was thinking more the "c" word.


Google Pelosi and Starkist tuna. See how the minmum wage in 2007 was set to rise Everywhere except American Samoa where Starkist processes their tuna. By the by, Starkist is headquartered in Pelosi's district. Just one example, there are countless others.

Countless others, on both sides of the aisle, cutting deals for corporate constituents. Paleaze, Alice, are you really shocked?

Not arguing that point, but we were discussing Ms. Pelosi's sandbox, not the other elected losers. How come when specifics are given in this case, the discussion must revert to either the "Let's move on" or "The other side is just as bad" arguments??
Riddle me this, How many of Obama's campaign promises were broken ramming the "stimulus" legislation through Congress? Is it 6 or 7?

Man she is sooo intouch with what is needed to solive our issues now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PTqvyzwRg

I love this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwH52CC4YF8
WTF... does she want a pat on the back for hacking through in rush order the largest spending bill EVER in congress???
She had to BALLS to stand up to the first round of TARP as it went through congress last fall, but then blindly pass this bill for even more money???


She is sooo blindly partisan it makes me ill to see her smug face.

Forgive me, I was remiss suggesting there is the "other side"? Obama picked a cabinet McCain would have been proud of. By choosing mostly Beltway insiders, with Geithner and Summers guarding the henhouse, did you expect anything but business as usual?

How come when specifics are given in this case, the discussion must revert to either the "Let's move on" or "The other side is just as bad" arguments??

Because recrimination is one of the oldest and most used tactics in debate. It is most useful when one can not mount a defense, a counterthrust when one cannot parry. A debater does well upon encountering it by reminding one what the original subject is and returning to it, claiming that the recrimination is a subject of another discussion.

As a member of "the other side," I don't believe I've engaged in either of those arguments. Why the over-generalization? If you're looking at online posts in other fora, I think it's important to remember that those who post are not necessarily representative of "the other side"; they're generally the ones who are angry or passionate enough to post. I see the same "let's move on" or "Democrats did it too" arguments on the right, but I don't assume that all or even most Republicans necessarily share those views.



Care to be specific?

I assume part of the critique is along the lines that others have taken: that the legislation violated Obama's calls for greater transparency. This critique is flawed for several reasons. First, it's not as if Obama has plenary control over how Congress does its business (separation of powers and all that). The best he can do his cajole them into adopting new processes. If Congress refuses to do so, there's not much any chief executive can do about it.

Second, it was important to pass the package quickly. Stimulus legislation frequently arrives too late to do any good. And the budget crises in several states only heighten the urgency. There wasn't the opportunity to kick this around for a few more months and maintain the chances of effectiveness.

Third, I think the idea that we can have a dramatic shift in transparency just one month into a new administration is ludicrous. If it happens, it's going to take time for Congress to adopt new rules and processes. In four years, if the process hasn't changed, then I'd be glad to assess why it hasn't changed and to what extent that failure was because of or in spite of the administration's actions or lack thereof. But I'd say that four weeks is a tad premature to be passing judgment on what are going to be long-term goals.

I watched the clip and didn't find anything that was so objectionable. If you're referring to the family planning funding, Democrats (and Pelosi) agreed to remove the funding for contraceptive services at the request of Republicans. And on the merits, Pelosi apparently was right: that same news story says that a 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that such a program would have saved money for the federal government.



What "stand[ing] up to the first round of TARP" are you referring to? I thought she worked hard to get the darn thing passed. (She objected to the three-page version proposed by Paulsen, as did just about everyone else in Congress.)

Yes, this legislation was rushed through. Yes, it contains some earmarks that probably should have been left out. Welcome to the legislative process; it's never been pretty. (And I'd be wary of taking my talking points from Glenn Beck. How many Republicans do you think read all of the appropriations bills over the past eight years? I agree that parts of the legislation may be flawed, but I think the "I didn't get to read it" argument is a little too convenient. The idea that they don't know what the vast, vast majority of the funding is going for is a little disingenuous.)



Yes, she is at times partisan. Does that mean she hasn't done a good job as Speaker? Again, where are the specifics regarding management, as opposed to policy you may disagree with but has little to do with her role as Speaker?

Plus, the stimulus package had large portions that Democrats objected to, namely much of the tax cuts. But Pelosi and most of her caucus voted for it anyway. Despite the tax cuts, not a single Republican voted for it. If there's a problem with partisanship, it seems to me that it rests more on the other side of the aisle (not that it doesn't exist on both sides).

Yes, Pelosi is partisan. But I don't see the "blindly" part of it. There has been give and take in the House. I believe she has brought legislation to the floor that was opposed by the majority of her caucus (as opposed to Hastert who had "the majority of the majority" rule--the only legislation that would be considered would be items that had the support of at least a majority of Republicans, regardless of whether it had the support of a majority in the House as a whole).

Again, I can understand objections to Pelosi on policy grounds. Republicans aren't going to agree with most Democratic policies (otherwise we wouldn't have two parties). But I don't see where the venom comes from regarding her role as Speaker. I don't think the clips make the point.

It's a positive thing if it gets the banking industry on its feet and lending again. It's a positive thing if it helps prevent the credit markets from freezing up and sending the economy into an unrecoverable tailspin.

It's basically what we did in the S&L crisis. We didn't get all our money back, but we got a lot of it back and avoided a worse outcome that was the likely scenario if we hadn't done anything, so it left the nation better off as a whole.

And mworking was correct: I never claimed the government would make money on the TARP funds. I only claimed that the initial $700 billion was not the true cost because we were getting something for that money.

But we've only seen the start of the bank bailout. From what I've read, this thing is going to take billions more before its over. Time to get used to it. (Unless, of course, one would rather see the credit markets collapse and take the rest of the economy down with it. I don't like it, but the alternatives are worse.)

Here ya go bro, specifics:
7 Broken Promises in Record Time
1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. You

Here ya go bro, specifics:
7 Broken Promises in Record Time
1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. You

Here ya go bro, specifics:
7 Broken Promises in Record Time
Make government open and transparent.

Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

No more secrecy.

Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

You

As I wrote above, first, a president has limited power to tell Congress how to run things. Does anyone see in the Constitution where the president has the power to unilaterally impose the proposals you cite? All he has is the power of persuasion and a veto pen. And with a stimulus bill that was a priority to pass quickly, there was neither time to change House procedures nor was it the time to veto the bill.

And second, we're only four weeks into his administration, fer cryin' out loud. Do we really expect him to be able to change how Congress does things in the first 28 days, especially when there are multiple crises to deal with immediately? Sometimes it seems like conservatives think Obama is more superhuman than Democrats do.

Again, as I wrote above, changing procedures will take time. If the process has not improved in four years, or maybe even two years, I'd be as glad as anyone on the right wing to join in the criticism if it turns out the administration was at fault. But it's also possible that Obama can try and try to get Congress to make these changes, and Congress can still say no. I'm glad to apportion blame where blame is due. But I think it's a tad early to say Obama is a fraud because it didn't happen in the first month.

As for "Broken Promises," did he ever say it would happen in four weeks? There's lots of other stuff he said he supported that hasn't happened yet; so are those promises broken too? Is it time for impeachment because we don't have high speed rail already?

On the upside, Obama has ended budget accounting gimmicks even though they will "add" to the deficit. The administration will now not count future AMT taxes that we all know have not been collected year after year because Congress always passes a patch. They will not fail to include war spending which we all know is coming. They will not assume minimum Medicare payments when the law mandating lower payments is routinely waived. And they will not exclude budgeting for natural disaster relief. These changes result in a 2.7 trillion "increase" in expenditures over the next decade, but they are expenditures almost certain to happen anyway, so it's far better to have it out in the open instead of hidden with an asterisk as they have in previous administrations. The budget will, finally, better reflect real anticipated expenditures, and not engage in the fantasy that projected deficits will be smaller than they actually will be. That's change I can believe in, and it should be supported by both parties.

It's also change where he has the power to effect it quickly and unilaterally: in his administration. Effecting change in another branch of government is a different and more complicated matter.

But we've only seen the start of the bank bailout. From what I've read, this thing is going to take billions more before its over. Time to get used to it.

This sort of thing was predicted over ten years ago.

Speaking of ten years ago:

http://www.lizdinovella.com/?tag=glass-steagall

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader02022009.html

Good lookup work, Yorick. It reassures me that I voted for the right man last year.

From a post by Daniel about Obama:

As for "Broken Promises," did he ever say it would happen in four weeks? There's lots of other stuff he said he supported that hasn't happened yet; so are those promises broken too?

One may track the man's ongoing record via the Obameter.

First, it's not as if Obama has plenary control over how Congress does its business (separation of powers and all that). The best he can do his cajole them into adopting new processes. If Congress refuses to do so, there's not much any chief executive can do about it.