Nancy's First 100 Hours

[Tigermike 3,053]

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker wannabe, has finally announced something that sorta, kinda, looks like an agenda for the House under her leadership, but only the first 100 hours of that leadership:

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

Why does that sound like socialism lite to me?

Notice she has not got away from the dems class warfare rhetoric? Rewarding "wealth, not work"? Dems act as though people with large incomes have simply sat back and let the bucks roll in while doing nothing in the form of work to earn it. That may be true of Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry, but it's not true of most high earners. Dems also act as if those tax cuts had nothing to do with the economy.

The 9/11 commission stuff is pure political noise. The Dems treat the 9/11 commission as though its report was written on stone tablets and handed down from a smoking mountain. There's no effort to examine the report carefully to see if every recommendation is really needed or valuable. That tells me they really have no clue as to what to do in the war on terror, other than issue legal indictments against terrorists. But will grab onto a flawed report to make them look like they care.

And of course, this whole "plan" assumes a compliant Republican minority and a compliant Senate, not to mention a president who doesn't have a veto pen. It's naive at best.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100600056.html

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker wannabe, has finally announced something that sorta, kinda, looks like an agenda for the House under her leadership, but only the first 100 hours of that leadership:

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

Why does that sound like socialism lite to me?

Notice she has not got away from the dems class warfare rhetoric? Rewarding "wealth, not work"? Dems act as though people with large incomes have simply sat back and let the bucks roll in while doing nothing in the form of work to earn it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100600056.html

Because you don't know what socialism is? Or was that rhetorical?

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign. Republicans are big on cutting capital gains taxes. Capital gains on investments are taxed at a lower rate than wages someone earns. So person who sits by the pool, living off a trust fund and making $100,000 a year on investments gets taxed less than someone working 60 hours a week and making the exact same thing. So a person who doesn't earn a wage, but lives off a trust fund gets a tax cut that the working man doesn't. Further, a self-employed person is paying all of his own payroll taxes which have not been reduced.

Folks can't say, "Yeah, but lowering the tax on capital gains spurs investment, etc." That's an argument with some validity, but it doesn't change the fact that wealth generating income is treated more favorably than work generating income. Place the weight where you wish, but there are merits to both arguments.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Because you don't know what socialism is? Or was that rhetorical?

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Anything else you would like to show your ass on?

Same ole class war fare the dems have been running on for years.

It still sounds like socialism lite to me.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Because you don't know what socialism is? Or was that rhetorical?

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Anything else you would like to show your ass on?

Same ole class war fare the dems have been running on for years.

It still sounds like socialism lite to me.

How does her plan redistribute property and wealth?

And, by the way, I made a substantive policy response to your question that you ignored.

[Tiger Al 0]

The 9/11 commission stuff is pure political noise. The Dems treat the 9/11 commission as though its report was written on stone tablets and handed down from a smoking mountain. There's no effort to examine the report carefully to see if every recommendation is really needed or valuable. That tells me they really have no clue as to what to do in the war on terror, other than issue legal indictments against terrorists. But will grab onto a flawed report to make them look like they care.

Do you honestly think that they haven't read the report? If you think that the report said to only 'issue legal indictments to terrorists,' then that tells me that it is you who hasn't read it and are only parroting what you've heard on Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

[AURaptor 1,126]

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

We must share the benefiits of those who earned what they did by forcing them to give it to others, at the point of a gun.

[Tiger Al 0]

Because you don't know what socialism is? Or was that rhetorical?

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Anything else you would like to show your ass on?

Same ole class war fare the dems have been running on for years.

It still sounds like socialism lite to me.

How does her plan redistribute property and wealth?

And, by the way, I made a substantive policy response to your question that you ignored.

Not only ignored it, but, only responded with a smarmy, personal insult. Kind of like what you get accused of so often.

Anything else you would like to show your ass on?

Maybe he's still angry from yesterday's game.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.

We must share the benefiits of those who earned what they did by forcing them to give it to others, at the point of a gun.

That's the fantasy cartoon world in which you reside. Actually, Pelosi's statement in this context is in reference to paying a living wage. With the current minimum wage, a 40 hour a week worker is still in poverty in the wealthiest country in the world. You can disagree with raising the minimum wage, but equating it with nationalizing private property at gunpoint borders on insane.

In regard to redistribution of wealth, however, one could argue that the American workers tax dollars have been used to fill the coffers of those that fund Bush's campaigns. Halliburton and big Pharma have done very well at the public trough, and the oil companies got a tax break while producing record profits.

[AURaptor 1,126]

That's the fantasy cartoon world in which you reside. Actually, Pelosi's statement in this context is in reference to paying a living wage. With the current minimum wage, a 40 hour a week worker is still in poverty in the wealthiest country in the world. You can disagree with raising the minimum wage, but equating it with nationalizing private property at gunpoint borders on insane.

In regard to redistribution of wealth, however, one could argue that the American workers tax dollars have been used to fill the coffers of those that fund Bush's campaigns. Halliburton and big Pharma have done very well at the public trough, and the oil companies got a tax break while producing record profits.

The fantasy cartoon world you live in is denying that Pelosi's vision of the world is to punish those who achieve by taking from the , yes - at the point of a gun , and giving to those who don't achieve. We're vastly over taxed, and too much of our $$ goes to the Fed Emperial Gov't., which is then sent out to vote buying hand outs to the poor. This misnomer of the ' living wage' gets great press, until you realize it's just another bumber sticker tactic. The min wage isn't meant for adults trying to raise a family. It's the base pay for those just starting out in the employment world. Servers in restaurants don't even get 'min. wage', so this whole trumped up issue of a 'living wage' is meaningless. Haliburton isn't the big evil that the Dems try to make it out to be. They were working for the Gov't , on no-bid projects , even under Clinton's term. You wanna develop your own medicines ? Fine, then force the drug companies out of the US. And spare me the whines of 'big oil' .

[DKW 86 7,440]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

[Tiger Al 0]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

Why do you say trial attorneys don't work?

[DKW 86 7,440]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

Why do you say trial attorneys don't work?

Look Al, when you deny reality you cannot have a rational discussion. He is a trial lawyer, a universally disliked subhuman species. We have people that make a living making attorney jokes. These are the leaches that sue HARDWORKING people, companies, and employees out of business while they live like a king off the money. McDonalds coffee, etc. I bet we could name at least 20 totally outrageous decisions based on the thinking that no one is responsible for anything unless they have the cash to apy out TO the trial lawyers.

Edwards won $50M over the lunacy that a fetus is living before birth and can feel pain. Yet he can have a campaign speech protecting abortion on demand.

When the biggest case of his career was based on arguing that the fetus could and does feel pain how could he have a logical leg to stand on by supporting abortion? Edwards is just like any other lower food chain trial lawyer, he is a parasite looking for juries dumb enough to make him rich beyond his dreams. Trail alwyers then turn that money into highly corrupting campaign funding.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

You'll do anything to avoid addressing the substance in the post, won't you?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

He is a trial lawyer, a universally disliked subhuman species.

Actually, trial lawyers are being more and more appreciated by more Republicans all the time, as evidenced by the fact that so many have hired them in the last few years.

[Tiger Al 0]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

Why do you say trial attorneys don't work?

Look Al, when you deny reality you cannot have a rational discussion. He is a trial lawyer, a universally disliked subhuman species. We have people that make a living making attorney jokes. These are the leaches that sue HARDWORKING people, companies, and employees out of business while they live like a king off the money. McDonalds coffee, etc. I bet we could name at least 20 totally outrageous decisions based on the thinking that no one is responsible for anything unless they have the cash to apy out TO the trial lawyers.

Edwards won $50M over the lunacy that a fetus is living before birth and can feel pain. Yet he can have a campaign speech protecting abortion on demand.

When the biggest case of his career was based on arguing that the fetus could and does feel pain how could he have a logical leg to stand on by supporting abortion? Edwards is just like any other lower food chain trial lawyer, he is a parasite looking for juries dumb enough to make him rich beyond his dreams. Trail alwyers then turn that money into highly corrupting campaign funding.

None of this supports your assertion that trial lawyers don't work.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

Why do you say trial attorneys don't work?

Look Al, when you deny reality you cannot have a rational discussion. He is a trial lawyer, a universally disliked subhuman species. We have people that make a living making attorney jokes. These are the leaches that sue HARDWORKING people, companies, and employees out of business while they live like a king off the money. McDonalds coffee, etc. I bet we could name at least 20 totally outrageous decisions based on the thinking that no one is responsible for anything unless they have the cash to apy out TO the trial lawyers.

Edwards won $50M over the lunacy that a fetus is living before birth and can feel pain. Yet he can have a campaign speech protecting abortion on demand.

When the biggest case of his career was based on arguing that the fetus could and does feel pain how could he have a logical leg to stand on by supporting abortion? Edwards is just like any other lower food chain trial lawyer, he is a parasite looking for juries dumb enough to make him rich beyond his dreams. Trail alwyers then turn that money into highly corrupting campaign funding.

None of this supports your assertion that trial lawyers don't work.

Why should David have to start supporting assertions now? Why won't another tired old rant do?

[Tiger Al 0]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

Why do you say trial attorneys don't work?

Look Al, when you deny reality you cannot have a rational discussion. He is a trial lawyer, a universally disliked subhuman species. We have people that make a living making attorney jokes. These are the leaches that sue HARDWORKING people, companies, and employees out of business while they live like a king off the money. McDonalds coffee, etc. I bet we could name at least 20 totally outrageous decisions based on the thinking that no one is responsible for anything unless they have the cash to apy out TO the trial lawyers.

Edwards won $50M over the lunacy that a fetus is living before birth and can feel pain. Yet he can have a campaign speech protecting abortion on demand.

When the biggest case of his career was based on arguing that the fetus could and does feel pain how could he have a logical leg to stand on by supporting abortion? Edwards is just like any other lower food chain trial lawyer, he is a parasite looking for juries dumb enough to make him rich beyond his dreams. Trail alwyers then turn that money into highly corrupting campaign funding.

None of this supports your assertion that trial lawyers don't work.

Why should David have to start supporting assertions now? Why won't another tired old rant do?

True. Have you heard the latest? David isn't a republican anymore. He said they're nothing more than a silly copy of the Democrats. I think he was just trying to distance himself from them until this Foley business is over, though, and then he'll be back.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I am and I have and it went further back than this petty Foley crap. I have an open mind and have said I would support the RIGHT Third Party. You see, I actually debate and think and can alter views.

Unlike you two totally closed minded goosesteppers...

[Tiger Al 0]

I am and I have and it went further back than this petty Foley crap. I have an open mind and have said I would support the RIGHT Third Party. You see, I actually debate and think and can alter views.

Unlike you two totally closed minded goosesteppers...

So, you're a flip-flopper, huh? Which third party did you choose?

[Tigermike 3,053]

The 9/11 commission stuff is pure political noise. The Dems treat the 9/11 commission as though its report was written on stone tablets and handed down from a smoking mountain. There's no effort to examine the report carefully to see if every recommendation is really needed or valuable. That tells me they really have no clue as to what to do in the war on terror, other than issue legal indictments against terrorists. But will grab onto a flawed report to make them look like they care.

Do you honestly think that they haven't read the report? If you think that the report said to only 'issue legal indictments to terrorists,' then that tells me that it is you who hasn't read it and are only parroting what you've heard on Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

No Al I didn't say anything about the report said only issue legal indictments to terrorists. That was pointed at Clinton and the dems as a whole. That was Clinton's policy and the dems haven't said they intended anything different.

PS - I don't listen to Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

[Tiger Al 0]

The 9/11 commission stuff is pure political noise. The Dems treat the 9/11 commission as though its report was written on stone tablets and handed down from a smoking mountain. There's no effort to examine the report carefully to see if every recommendation is really needed or valuable. That tells me they really have no clue as to what to do in the war on terror, other than issue legal indictments against terrorists. But will grab onto a flawed report to make them look like they care.

Do you honestly think that they haven't read the report? If you think that the report said to only 'issue legal indictments to terrorists,' then that tells me that it is you who hasn't read it and are only parroting what you've heard on Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

No Al I didn't say anything about the report said only issue legal indictments to terrorists. That was pointed at Clinton and the dems as a whole. That was Clinton's policy and the dems haven't said they intended anything different.

PS - I don't listen to Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

Oh, that's right, it's Karl Rove's strawman that you parrot. I remember now.

[Tigermike 3,053]

The 9/11 commission stuff is pure political noise. The Dems treat the 9/11 commission as though its report was written on stone tablets and handed down from a smoking mountain. There's no effort to examine the report carefully to see if every recommendation is really needed or valuable. That tells me they really have no clue as to what to do in the war on terror, other than issue legal indictments against terrorists. But will grab onto a flawed report to make them look like they care.

Do you honestly think that they haven't read the report? If you think that the report said to only 'issue legal indictments to terrorists,' then that tells me that it is you who hasn't read it and are only parroting what you've heard on Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

No Al I didn't say anything about the report said only issue legal indictments to terrorists. That was pointed at Clinton and the dems as a whole. That was Clinton's policy and the dems haven't said they intended anything different.

PS - I don't listen to Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham.

Oh, that's right, it's Karl Rove's strawman that you parrot. I remember now.

No Al you didn't forget, but that was a pretty lame attempt at smack talk or humor, I couldn't tell which. I very rarely listen to talk radio. If I do, it's in the morning and usually Glenn Beck for a few minutes while driving wherever. Just because you and Tex always agree with the latest memos from the dnc, does not mean that I get any memos from the RNC. As far as Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham go, I think Limbaugh is the only one on air in the Birmingham area. But he is on during a time that I am rarely in the car and if I am, I listen to sports radio.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

"Rewarding wealth, not work" was the theme of Edwards campaign.

Said a trial attorney that probably hasnt worked a day since he graduated law school.

There is sssooo much irony here I should not even have to point it out.

Why do you say trial attorneys don't work?

Look Al, when you deny reality you cannot have a rational discussion. He is a trial lawyer, a universally disliked subhuman species. We have people that make a living making attorney jokes. These are the leaches that sue HARDWORKING people, companies, and employees out of business while they live like a king off the money. McDonalds coffee, etc. I bet we could name at least 20 totally outrageous decisions based on the thinking that no one is responsible for anything unless they have the cash to apy out TO the trial lawyers.

Edwards won $50M over the lunacy that a fetus is living before birth and can feel pain. Yet he can have a campaign speech protecting abortion on demand.

When the biggest case of his career was based on arguing that the fetus could and does feel pain how could he have a logical leg to stand on by supporting abortion? Edwards is just like any other lower food chain trial lawyer, he is a parasite looking for juries dumb enough to make him rich beyond his dreams. Trail alwyers then turn that money into highly corrupting campaign funding.

None of this supports your assertion that trial lawyers don't work.

Why should David have to start supporting assertions now? Why won't another tired old rant do?

True. Have you heard the latest? David isn't a republican anymore. He said they're nothing more than a silly copy of the Democrats. I think he was just trying to distance himself from them until this Foley business is over, though, and then he'll be back.

Yeah, he doesn't care who wins in November as long as its not a Democrat.

[DKW 86 7,440]

I am and I have and it went further back than this petty Foley crap. I have an open mind and have said I would support the RIGHT Third Party. You see, I actually debate and think and can alter views.

Unlike you two totally closed minded goosesteppers...

So, you're a flip-flopper, huh? Which third party did you choose?

DKW likes Noonan's Third Party

The DKW Party

Otter Party

[Tiger Al 0]

I am and I have and it went further back than this petty Foley crap. I have an open mind and have said I would support the RIGHT Third Party. You see, I actually debate and think and can alter views.

Unlike you two totally closed minded goosesteppers...

So, you're a flip-flopper, huh? Which third party did you choose?

DKW likes Noonan's Third Party

The DKW Party

Otter Party

You left the republicans for three fictitious parties, huh? Nice. It's a wonderyour knees aren't buckling from the weight of your convictions.