MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Nancy Pelosi Must Go I
I give up. I have been trying and trying to avoid Nancy Pelosi, but due to Betsy's Page's and Tran Sient's Watch's horrified commentary on Pelosi's belief that the Supreme Court is God, I was forced to read her last press conference. Why? Because I could not believe that she was not being selectively quoted to some degree. I figured that TS and Betsy had picked up those selective quotes from news articles.
But it's worse even than they portrayed. The quotes were selectively kind and in her favor. I knew the woman was dumb, but I had no conception at all that she could possibly be this dumb. This is a historic level of stupidity.
Let me say that I am losing confidence in a party that makes this woman one of their top national leaders. If you think I'm exaggerating, please read the transcript of her press conference. Let me also say that as a woman I'm offended that this person is supposed to represent the Democrats commitment to women's issues. What qualifications can she possibly have other than female genitalia, fashionable slenderness, wealth and a large mouth? Because let's not kid ourselves, ladies, that's why the Democratic party picked this person to be the Democratic House Leader; they figured they have to have the women's vote and that this was a great way to show how seriously they take women. Well, picking an intellectual bottom-feeder to assure us that our concerns are important to the Democratic party seems to me to be rather insulting to America's women, not to mention to the intelligent women in the Democratic party! What Diane Feinstein can be thinking I can't imagine.
On to the first specific. Remember this is Pelosi's press conference, given in her office, rather than some talk show when she was caught off guard and tricked into saying what she didn't mean. The first unbelievably stupid comment was on Social Security:
Congress would get custody of paper with numbers on it. Congress would have no more money to spend today, and when the workers stopped paying in enough to cover the retirees' social security checks in oh, say, 2017, Congress would have to pay for those checks by taking other tax money and using it to pay the checks. And if the trust fund is still around in 2017, the exact same thing will happen. Congress will solemnly accept some paper with numbers on it from the trust fund, and take the exact same amount of tax money and use it to pay Social Security checks. Which means we will have to raise taxes, even though we already raised taxes to pay for this - but we failed to actually save the extra money for the future. Minor technical difficulty there.
Okay sweetie? Review time. Follow the bouncing ball:
And this is what you think the model for the future is? Why don't you ask Greenspan what he thinks? Why don't you try reading the CBO report. Why don't you try reading the Social Security Trustee's report?
This will be continued in a later installment.
But it's worse even than they portrayed. The quotes were selectively kind and in her favor. I knew the woman was dumb, but I had no conception at all that she could possibly be this dumb. This is a historic level of stupidity.
Let me say that I am losing confidence in a party that makes this woman one of their top national leaders. If you think I'm exaggerating, please read the transcript of her press conference. Let me also say that as a woman I'm offended that this person is supposed to represent the Democrats commitment to women's issues. What qualifications can she possibly have other than female genitalia, fashionable slenderness, wealth and a large mouth? Because let's not kid ourselves, ladies, that's why the Democratic party picked this person to be the Democratic House Leader; they figured they have to have the women's vote and that this was a great way to show how seriously they take women. Well, picking an intellectual bottom-feeder to assure us that our concerns are important to the Democratic party seems to me to be rather insulting to America's women, not to mention to the intelligent women in the Democratic party! What Diane Feinstein can be thinking I can't imagine.
On to the first specific. Remember this is Pelosi's press conference, given in her office, rather than some talk show when she was caught off guard and tricked into saying what she didn't mean. The first unbelievably stupid comment was on Social Security:
Q Ms. Pelosi, do House Democrats or Senate Democrats plan to offer their own Social Security proposal, and if so, what might it say? And if not, why not?No, you haven't been effective and you have no plan. You haven't been effective because you clearly literally don't understand the basics of the problem, which is that Social Security will start running a deficit around 2016 or 2017. The problem is that the "bipartisan compromise" of 1983 lacked a mechanism for saving the extra funds that all the workers were paying in, and that money is gone. Let me try to explain this in words a kindergartener could understand. The trust fund consists of numbers on paper. If Congress were to pass a law saying that they were taking all the "trust fund" today, nothing would change, sweetie.
Ms. Pelosi. Are we going to offer our own Social Security proposal? The big issue with Social Security is solvency. Nothing that the Republicans have done has addressed the issue of solvency. And solvency of course is affected by the budget deficits, as well as the Republicans continued raid on Social Security.
The only way to address solvency is to go to the table in a bipartisan way to do that. The model was Speaker Tip O'Neill in 1983, when he joined the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, in a bipartisan meeting to resolve the issue of solvency of Social Security. They did so in a very effective way. Social Security is solvent until the middle of this century. It will be solvent for 70 years from when they took their action. That's the way to do that.
We have been, I think, very effective in saying our plan is to save Social Security, to stop privatization, to stop the raid on Social Security, and to strengthen solvency. That is our plan.
Congress would get custody of paper with numbers on it. Congress would have no more money to spend today, and when the workers stopped paying in enough to cover the retirees' social security checks in oh, say, 2017, Congress would have to pay for those checks by taking other tax money and using it to pay the checks. And if the trust fund is still around in 2017, the exact same thing will happen. Congress will solemnly accept some paper with numbers on it from the trust fund, and take the exact same amount of tax money and use it to pay Social Security checks. Which means we will have to raise taxes, even though we already raised taxes to pay for this - but we failed to actually save the extra money for the future. Minor technical difficulty there.
Okay sweetie? Review time. Follow the bouncing ball:
- The trust fund does not exist.
- Social Security will be insolvent in 11 or 12 years.
- Medicare is already running a deficit.
- You are still spending the extra money we pay in each year instead of saving it.
And this is what you think the model for the future is? Why don't you ask Greenspan what he thinks? Why don't you try reading the CBO report. Why don't you try reading the Social Security Trustee's report?
This will be continued in a later installment.
Comments:
<< Home
I still can't get past the Supreme Court is God statement.
Now I don't go around reading the constitution on a daily basis but I was fairly certain that the Court was simply one of the three parts of the federal government. I seriously think we have a problem with the legislature acquiescing too easily to the power of the courts instead of fighting to protect their constitutionally granted powers.
Pelosi's quote unfortunately leads me to think they don't consider the three parts of the government to be on equal footing.
At best that is terrifying. I have said since she gained her current position that any party that would allow her a prominent role in their national "picture" was in trouble. I still feel that way.
Now I don't go around reading the constitution on a daily basis but I was fairly certain that the Court was simply one of the three parts of the federal government. I seriously think we have a problem with the legislature acquiescing too easily to the power of the courts instead of fighting to protect their constitutionally granted powers.
Pelosi's quote unfortunately leads me to think they don't consider the three parts of the government to be on equal footing.
At best that is terrifying. I have said since she gained her current position that any party that would allow her a prominent role in their national "picture" was in trouble. I still feel that way.
# posted by 
: 1:29 PM
: 1:29 PM
Well, that's the next installment. She doesn't understand the decision and she doesn't understand how the government is supposed to work. You are dead right. She is not fit to hold the position.
You're right about Pelosi. She doesn't think the Dems need a plan for Social Security -- she thinks they only needs to be against the republicans'. I was pretty aghast when I was told that.
Esther, in all honesty the Dems are making it very difficult for the middle of the roaders to support them. They seem to be doing their very best to present themselves as incompetent, clueless and reckless. However, Pelosi really does need to go, or we need a third party. This is shameful. The next installment shows just how shameful.
This woman simply is not competent to influence the legislative policy of her party. It is truly that simple.
I think of Barbara Jordan and I want to cry. How could they do this?
This woman simply is not competent to influence the legislative policy of her party. It is truly that simple.
I think of Barbara Jordan and I want to cry. How could they do this?
I see it as a matter of succession. Sooner or later Feinstein or Boxer will go and Pelosi wants to be the heiress apparent. To do that, she has to have the lefty, offer nothing but critique, California credentials.
You could well be right, but what does this say about the future of the Democratic party? And if the Democratic party doesn't have a very bright future, then what does that mean for the country?
I don't think we will fare well as a de facto one-party nation.
Post a Comment
I don't think we will fare well as a de facto one-party nation.
<< Home
