All things Pelosi

Perhaps a refresher....

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1094806#1094806

What is it that you're wishing to refresh with that link?

Krugman makes an interesting case for continuing the deficit, along with better spending practices. Otherwise, the next president may be Bush-like and squander the savings.


^12/22/06: Democrats and the Deficit

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Now that the Democrats have regained some power, they have to decide
what to do. One of the biggest questions is whether the party should
return to Rubinomics -- the doctrine, associated with former Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin, that placed a very high priority on reducing the
budget deficit.

The answer, I believe, is no. Mr. Rubin was one of the ablest Treasury
secretaries in American history. But it's now clear that while Rubinomics
made sense in terms of pure economics, it failed to take account of the
ugly realities of contemporary American politics.

And the lesson of the last six years is that the Democrats shouldn't
spend political capital trying to bring the deficit down. They should
refrain from actions that make the deficit worse. But given a choice
between cutting the deficit and spending more on good things like health
care reform, they should choose the spending.

In a saner political environment, the economic logic behind Rubinomics
would have been compelling. Basic fiscal principles tell us that the
government should run budget deficits only when it faces unusually high
expenses, mainly during wartime. In other periods it should try to run a
surplus, paying down its debt.

Since the 1990s were an era of peace, prosperity and favorable
demographics (the baby boomers were still in the work force, not
collecting Social Security and Medicare), it should have been a good
time to put the federal budget in the black. And under Mr. Rubin, the
huge deficits of the Reagan-Bush years were transformed into an
impressive surplus.

But the realities of American politics ensured that it was all for
naught. The second President Bush quickly squandered the surplus on tax
cuts that heavily favored the wealthy, then plunged the budget deep into
deficit by cutting taxes on dividends and capital gains even as he took
the country into a disastrous war. And you can even argue that Mr.
Rubin's surplus was a bad thing, because it greased the rails for Mr.
Bush's irresponsibility.

As Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economist who served in the Clinton
administration, recently wrote on his influential blog: "Rubin and us
spearcarriers moved heaven and earth to restore fiscal balance to the
American government in order to raise the rate of economic growth. But
what we turned out to have done, in the end, was to enable George W.
Bush's right-wing class war: his push for greater after-tax income
inequality."

My only quibble with Mr. DeLong's characterization is that this wasn't
just one man's class war: the whole conservative movement shared Mr.
Bush's squanderlust, his urge to run off with the money so carefully
saved under Mr. Rubin's leadership.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that conservatives who claimed
to care about deficits when Democrats were in power never meant it.
Let's not forget how Alan Greenspan, who posed as the high priest of
fiscal rectitude as long as Bill Clinton was in the White House, became
an apologist for tax cuts -- even in the face of budget deficits -- once a
Republican took up residence.

Now the Democrats are back in control of Congress. They've pledged not
to be as irresponsible as their predecessors: Nancy Pelosi, the incoming
House speaker, has promised to restore the "pay-as-you-go" rule that the
Republicans tossed aside in the Bush years. This rule would basically
prevent Congress from passing budgets that increase the deficit.

I'm for pay-as-you-go. The question, however, is whether to go further.
Suppose the Democrats can free up some money by fixing the Medicare drug
program, by ending the Iraq war and/or clamping down on war
profiteering, or by rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts. Should they
use the reclaimed revenue to reduce the deficit, or spend it on other
things?

The answer, I now think, is to spend the money -- while taking great care
to ensure that it is spent well, not squandered -- and let the deficit
be. By spending money well, Democrats can both improve Americans' lives
and, more broadly, offer a demonstration of the benefits of good
government. Deficit reduction, on the other hand, might just end up
playing into the hands of the next irresponsible president.

In the long run, something will have to be done about the deficit. But
given the state of our politics, now is not the time.
--------------------------------------------------------

Pelosi attained her new power due largely to the work of the progressives. She seems, however, to throwing support to the centrists and the super-rich.

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill)




CENTRISM IS FASCISM LIGHT

**********************************************************************
It's already obvious that Carville/Clinton/Lieberman centrists are giving away the Constitutional farm.

Gee, who's talking about impeachment these days, or getting out of Iraq QUICKLY? Certainly not the Democratic heads of the House or Senate. Hey, Nancy P., remember Iraq? And remember all that jive progressive talk you did before we (i.e., the progressives) handed you the house?

So, what's the deal? Two steps forward and three steps backward?

And how many more lectures do we have to hear about how political "realism" equals bipartisanship centrism? Hey, that's just samo, samo talk from American elites, i.e., those dem multimillionaires and billionaires who belong to exactly the same country clubs as pug multimillionaires and billionaires.

So, here's the deal. The Little Red Hen of progressives and "populists" won the 2006 midterms, but the dem lackeys of the American pig rich are trying to steal all the bread we baked.

So, did 2006 really happen or not? Did we or did we not play the game by the rules and did we or did we know kick out quantities of Bush/Republican fascists? Of course the answer is yes to both, but we underestimated the God-like power of America's mega rich.

And while we're at it, who's still talking about the Israeli/Palestinian metastasized cancer these days? President Jimmy Carter wrote a book about it. Perhaps our quintessential elder statesman didn't walk that razor's edge entirely successfully, but AT LEAST he reminded us that both Palestinians and Israeli's are still living in horror. All the statistics are now showing that, if anything, that mutual cancer is WORSE, not better.

The point is, the Middle East is a collective toilet of religious fanaticism and human misery, but centrists will enable those conflicts (i.e., wars) to continue indefinitely, because a centrist by definition is a "non boat rocker". But since our ship of state continues to rapidly sink, it's now or never time for MAJOR boat rocking.

OK, the big picture is now very clearly in focus. The pig, pig rich (of BOTH parties) are all of a piece with centrists (of BOTH parties). Said differently, centrism is fascism light, since the name of their game is to protect the reality/world of America's astronomically rich (say, the top 2 percent). In other words they are the political court jesters of American Royalty.

Yes, 2006 moved Democracy and the planet away from the certain death Bush/Republican waterfall, but 98% of the country is still being bled dry by vampire elites (e.g., the Bush Royal Family -- alias the Saudi Royal Family).

And who are the political "intermediaries" between the increasingly astronomical upper class of America and the increasingly victimized middle and lower classes. You guessed it! The "bipartisan centrists".

This scheme of things is like a perpetual motion machine. The 2% pig rich will continue to make fools out of the 98% via their centrist political stooges, until and if we work out how to break their machine.

Is this impossible? Certainly not. We can boycott (our chief unplayed trump card!), we can elect even more liberal candidates next time (2008 comes to mind!), and we can continue to keep having our "town hall" meetings on rational and moral internet sites.

We have truth, science, and integrity on our side. And we are, after all, the huge majority of American citizens and voters. It's time for us all to become activists for America and the Earth.

The alternative is not only what was there before 2006 -- but what is STILL there in the form of elite-sucking-up dem centrists.

from one of today's Newsmax email updates



Guess Mr. Viguerie forgot all about the complaints about MoveOn's grassroots efforts, and Howard Dean's grassroots efforts.

S'ok.

Pelosi Set to Attack Conservatives

All lobbyists are Conservative?

I notice that NewsMax is continuing the move away from using the word Republican. Conservative = good. Republican = bad. It'll be interesting to watch this play out.

Pelosi will push legislation to raise the minimum wage. Bush says he goes along, provided that accompanying tax cuts be enacted. Just what we need, higher deficits. Moreover, one of the cuts is the repeal of the federal estate tax. This will be highly appreciated by the likes of Paris Hilton, Teresa Heinz, and the other super rich.

Nancy negotiated a deal to trade Bush for the 15 UK soldiers captured by Iran. Iran said it was not a good deal.

Are you kidding the chance to kill the "most evil man" in history? I'm sure they would drop everything to accept that deal.

probably not. then they would have to deal with most evil sub human in recorded history. he might take them hunting or something.

The Muslim fanatics probably love to keep Bush where he is. After all, due to Bush's actions, Iraq has been a great breeding ground for fanatics.

It is clear that Pelosi isn't ready for prime time:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-04T150425Z_01_L04321424_RTRUKOC_0_US-SYRIA-USA-PELOSI.xml&src=rss&rpc=22


The scarf makes her look her age too.

It seems to me that Ms. Pelosi wants to be not only Speaker of the House, but Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief as well. She and her Democratic colleagues appear to be attempting to go far beyond their Constitutional limits by encroaching upon the Executive Branch. This is a far greater danger to the Republic than any errors that the administration may, or may not have made since 9/11. If successful in dominating the Executive Branch the beneficial checks and balances will be lost, and all future Presidents (regardless of party) will be mere puppets controlled by Congress.

The Founders recognized the impossibility of effective government by committee, and the danger of popular opinion dictating policy to the government. Such notions kept Greece from unification, and in the end even the appearance of democracy was lost. Rome became powerful because it was a Republic where individuals voted by blocks. Our "blocks" are the States. Instead of a singe legislative chamber, our Founders created two so that the interests of the few was balanced against the interests of the many. Effective government depends largely on a single effective executive able to wield the State's resources, but therein lies the danger of a dictator and tyrant. To protect us the Legislative and Judicial Branches have their own roles that have been carefully defined by the Constitution and 200 years of tradition. Far too often we fear the dominance of the Executive while ignoring the dangers of turning loose a crowd of Congressmen more attuned to their narrow constituencies than to the National Good.

Already we have largely abandoned the checks and balances between the two Chambers by electing Senators by popular vote. The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the various States and those of wealth and property. Now it only represents the same commons as the House. The Left and the Democrats seem determined to run the whole country, even if it means the practical end of our Constitution.

I guess we are now going to get the swift-boating of Pelosi. Paul, there was nothing in your linked piece indicating that Pelosi was less than first-rate.

Ash, I think Pelosi is showing that there are three branches of government, which was overdue. It is crazy that Bush has had the power to unilaterally do many of the things he is doing. For instance, there should have congressional action besides a mere resolution before going into Iraq.

Bush has done everything he could to make bitter enemies of the axis of evil. As the Baker/Hamilton Study argues, we should be talking and negotiating with the countries. Pelosi gets it, but Bush doesn't.

Pelosi has no business doing what she's doing in Syria.

Is there any law preventing her from doing so?

The leaders of the ME aren't stupid, they see where things are going in America. We need to start building bridges sooner rather than later.

Cycloptichorn

Oh god man, you scare me. President Cheney

Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to decide how the military is used?
They are not the C in C,the President is.

Where in the Constitution does Congress or any member of it,have the authority to negotiate with foreign govts and attempt to set foreign policy?
Thats the job of the executive branch.

For your education,here is the constitution so you can try and find the answers to the questions I just asked...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

FYI,Pelosi has neither the power,authority,or right to negotiate with a foreign leader,no matter who that leader is.

Read MM's answer. He's dead right. The woman has a job to do, that has nothing to do with interfering in Syria with ZERO authority to do anything. (I thought there was actually a law against it, but I don't feel like looking for one right now.)