Nancy Pelosi -- Should she maintain a leadership position for the dems?

@georgeob1,

georgeob, I'm not one to defend Pelosi, and I'll admit that "she has horns" analogy may apply to some people's perspective. What I have read on this thread was mostly proof that Pelosi has done a good job of passing legislation.

Where's the horn? Wasn't that her primary job?

As for applying imagination of conservatives is based on what conservatives have posted on all these political threads. Can you deny that my challenges against okie, ican, and you, are baseless? If so, please point them out to me?

I have agreed with many (not all) who have challenged all three of you on politics.

FYI (and others) who still label me a liberal, here are my core beliefs:
1. anti-slavery
2. hatred of racism and all forms of discrimination against any group
3. study and apply the Constitution for all
4. do not believe (christian) religion is necessary for a healthy nation
5, all people are equal (internationally), and should be treated the same
6. honest days work for an honest days wages and benefits
7. do the crime, pay the time
8. be charitable to all (except bigots and people who insult your intelligence)
9. believe in free market capitalism, but government control over monopolies, unethical/unlawful behavior, protect US commerce of unfair trade laws
10. universal health care for all of our citizens, but especially for all children

Do you know how many are based on the core belief of republicans? Why does okie, ican, and others continue to call me a liberal? Stupidity. I call myself an Independent.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well, I for one, would never consider C.I. a liberal.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Perhaps so, but the Republicans appear to have thrived, even with this thorn in their side, and I believe they will continue to do so.

I don't argue that Pelosi isn't focused and effective in disciplining and managing her political contingent in the Congress. She has amply demonstrated those qualities during the past two years, more or less as you described. However, these were at best tactical successes that have, so far, yielded significant strategic reversals for the current administration. Even as the House was passing the left wing "ideal" health care reform Democrat Senators were busy drafting alternate approaches, based on their own political calculations. I'm not choosing sides here - only noting that there was less than perfect unanimity among the Democrat barons. The serious setbacks experienced in the recent elections are very likely to stress the unity of the party in the coming months. The cracks will be small at first, but will undoubtedly grow.

Chuck Schumer would be fine with me too. A perfect foil to further distance middle America from the liberal Dems. New York and California will become the model failed states in the coming election.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps so, but the Republicans appear to have thrived, even with this thorn in their side, and I believe they will continue to do so.

Well, they did well in this last election, but let's not forget that they got smashed in the two preceding it. Hard to look at that and say that they have 'thrived' under Pelosi's tenure.

Quote:

I don't argue that Pelosi isn't focused and effective in disciplining and managing her political contingent in the Congress. She has amply demonstrated those qualities during the past two years, more or less as you described. However, these were at best tactical successes that have, so far, yielded significant strategic reversals for the current administration.

Far too early in the game to say that, George. After all, they DID pass the legislation that Obama wanted passed - HC and Financial reform. Even if they pass nothing for the next two years, he'll still have had an accomplished first term. And you can't tell me that having the Republicans running the House isn't a positive thing for his re-election chances.

Quote:

Chuck Schumer would be fine with me too. A perfect foil to further distance middle America from the liberal Dems. New York and California will become the model failed states in the coming election.

Oh, right. This seems to posit that the Republican-dominated states are doing well somehow, but the evidence doesn't match your narrative. What about Texas - they have a 24 billion dollar budget gap over the next two years, which is even bigger (by percentage) than California. Texas is supposed to be the EXAMPLE of how Conservatives run a state. Are you going to point to them as a 'failed state?'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, I wasn't attacking you - only a post you made that was both unkind and flawed - as I amply described.

Our beliefs are similar, but not identical.

I don't think okie represents anything but his own point of view: certainly not conservatism as I understand it. Furthermore, I don't see any point or benefit to anyone in the obsession that you and others here exhibit in persistently responding to and attacking everything he writes. Perhaps it is simply a substitute for real conservatism that some find easier to oppose than the real thing - an exercise that may comfort them in their fixed beliefs and require less effort than really thinking about it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

okie may represent only his POV, but they are the message that most conservatives believe and share. They have spread the misinformation amongst the US voters, that "liberals are the tax and spend party." Most Americans today believe that Obama raised income taxes when in fact he made tax cuts for all those earning less than $75,000 that is included in the stim bill he passed.

That's the problem with our politics; there are too many who sit back and let the likes of okie and ican post their POV without challenge. It's poison in this climate, and I will continue to challenge their bull ****.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree that it is early to make any predictions about 2012. The Republicans have a strong advantage now - as did the Democrats just two years ago. Things could change in either direction, and recent events confirm that.

However, the continuing stagnation of our economy, together with the (crazy in my view) expansion of the money supply being engineered bt the Fed (with Administration approval) appears to be convincing a still-growing segment of the population that we are still on the wrong track. We need to focus on wealth creation, production, competition, both internally and in a still competitive world etc. - not the redistribution of the wealth that exists (and is slipping through our fingers). So far there is no sign that the current Administration gets it. The expanding financial crises among state governments and the continuing slow recovery of the economy is likely to keep these issues before the public eye as time passes. For these reasons I am betting that current political trends will continue.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

.... I will continue to challenge their bull ****.

OK by me, but you are wasting your time and credibility, beating a dead horse..

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I agree; they're doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. Increasing the money flow is not what is needed now. I've not been a fan of Greenspan or Bernanke, because I see them making the wrong decisions too frequently - even when Greenspan was looked upon as a financial god.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

We need to focus on wealth creation, production, competition, both internally and in a still competitive world etc. - not the redistribution of the wealth that exists (and is slipping through our fingers)

Please expand on this; because it seems to me that you're just advocating for cutting taxes and regulations, the Republican solution for every problem that ever existed. However, there's very little evidence that doing either will actually help create jobs here. Perhaps you can explain in greater depth what you meant.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

We are very rapidly accumulating a growing body of evidence that increasing the scope, reach, intrusiveness and cost of government; creating huge new regulatory bureaucracies with expanded powers over growing segments of the economy and the prospect of uncrertain new (and undemocratic) regulatory actions can very effectively freeze investment in new economic activity. Worse all these tools in the hands of "reformers" , all too willing to make huge payoffs to their political supporters - at public expense - and persistently insensitive to the perspective of those who create the wealth they seek to redistribute, promise only worse in the future - if they are left in power.

Interestingly we are increasingly out of synch with our European friends on these issues. They are curtting back on even more grossly inflated government subsidies, and struggling to get out of the way of real economic activity, even as we foolishly try to imitate their failed models. Our recent effective devasluation of the dollar through the Fed's massive bond purchases is even scaring many of them.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
Please expand on this; because it seems to me that you're just advocating for cutting taxes and regulations, the Republican solution for every problem that ever existed. However, there's very little evidence that doing either will actually help create jobs here. Perhaps you can explain in greater depth what you meant.

Cycloptichorn

I'll take the time to do that when you explain how the billions wasted in "stimulus" programs failed to create any jobs at all (except in government).

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[
Please expand on this; because it seems to me that you're just advocating for cutting taxes and regulations, the Republican solution for every problem that ever existed. However, there's very little evidence that doing either will actually help create jobs here. Perhaps you can explain in greater depth what you meant.

Cycloptichorn

I'll take the time to do that when you explain how the billions wasted in "stimulus" programs failed to create any jobs at all (except in government).

I can't possibly be expected to explain false statements you make, George. What you just claimed is 100% false and you won't find a single economist who agrees with you.

It seems to me that you are merely dodging the fact that once again, your proposed solution - like always - is lower taxes and regulations. But you know that conversations which look for, yaknow, actual evidence to support your position simply aren't going to go well for you, and you'll be forced to fall back on exaggerations and tired tropes regarding Communism. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The fact of the matter is, the stim bill included tax breaks for the middle class, and also extended unemployment insurance to those who could not find jobs within a reasonable period of time. In this economic climate - which is labeled the Great Recession, finding jobs is very difficult with the minimum of 150,000 new jobs per month is required just to meet demand. Most economists agree 200,000 new jobs per month is required to rehire back those who have lost jobs during the past three years. That's not going to happen, and it's mandatory that our government support those folks with benefits such as unemployment benefits and food stamps.

However, I did not agree with the total stim bill, because there were too many loose ends that caused sloppy control of the money for projects that could have waited until better times.

Whether the stim bills intent was to create jobs or maintain job levels has never been articulated well. I think it did both, but it could have been done with more efficiency and effect.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I believe it is clear that he was using a bit of irony and a well-known metaphor to illustrate the fairly obvious fact that she is a polarizing figure who is intensely disliked by a fairly large segment of the voting public. Frankly I think it took a singular lack of imagination to miss this obvious point. Perhaps the issue at hand is not the excess "imagination of conservatives" (a sensless and sweeping generality), but rather your own lack of it - in this instance.

How does this make Pelosi any different then John Boehner? I assume you support John Boehner's leadership position, no?

Can you suggest someone you think would be a good Speaker of the House who isn't a polarizing figure who is intensely disliked by a fairly large segment of the voting public?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

max, Excellent point! Boehner doesn't only have horns, he's a prick.

0 Replies

@mattdeezy651,

All the conservatives are like that. Most just throw out one-liners against Pelosi, but none of them provide anything reasonable in opposition to her. She was a superb speaker and leader, and should continue in leadership roles.

1 Reply

Several years ago, the Rep leadership decided to demonize Pelosi and make her the No. 1 target. There is no valid basis for their criticism of her. Unfortunately, many independents seeing and hearing the relentless atacks on her begin to think that there may indeed be something wrong with her. There is not.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Not only that, but Boehner was the leader of the No Party. That georgeob would criticize Pelosi is uncalled for - especially since the GOP stood in the way of working for the American people.

The GOP even voted "no" on the small business assistance bill.
Nothing like a little hypocrisy when they always say they're for
supporting business.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Laws enabling the federal government to spread out borrowed money as some sort of "benefit" from the government - even if to small businesses - are merely enablers for more government corruption; organized dependency on the part of the recipients; and future claims on investment dollars to repay the growing public debt.. What we really need is for the government to end the economic uncertainty it has created with respect to new regulatory regimes and taxes, and get out of the way of the entrepreneurs who will create beneficial economic activity for us all.

Voting against something that is stupid, harmful in the long term and ineffective in the short term is hardly being anti business. We're having one of the slowest recoveries from a recession in our history, despite the fact that the government has tossed out unprecedented borrowed dollars in the name of "stimulus". What does that tell you?

1 Reply

Nancy Pelosi -- Should she maintain a leadership position for the dems?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know