Shared publicly  - 
 
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed Sunday it is a false argument to say the federal government has a spending problem. Do you agree?
11
4
Sabre Fan's profile photoHoward Schatan's profile photoMC Henry's profile photoChip Stanley's profile photo
67 comments
 
She's an idiot. Why would anyone try to have a discussion about anything with her. 
 
I strongly disagree. You can't solve the problem unless you admit you have one. 
 
Pelosi is correct. The government doesn't have a spending problem... the government has absolutely no problem spending other people's money ;-)
 
+Michael Weaver Awesome! I was thinking of a way to say it! Thank you! you are 100% she spends our money the best!
 
What evidence can she point to? When they spend BILLIONS on Muslim Zealots, the same kind that took down the Twin Towers, then cut the pay of military people because they're assholes...that's not saving money!
 
the government has a huge as spending problem were so much in dept we will never recover from it and they know it fuck cutting military cut what the government spending 
 
The real problem is simplifying it to 'spending'. The real issue is more specific. Military 'black budgets', entitlements, congressional benefits/pay, and of course pork barrel spending. The last one is a flaw of democracy the rest can be substantially reduced. So she is more wrong than right. 
 
Can we all agree to stop calling them "entitlements"?  "HANDOUTS" is more accurate and segregates military personal benefits from Obama-phones.
 
tbh i think we need to go back to the articles of confedracy were the government had to ask the states for money
 
Well, if you can lie about "no spending problem" then "The solution is 'more revenue'". is the next step down the slope. 

The "balanced approach" of "more revenue" is code for "raising taxes"... the left still doesn't understand that raising taxes does not guarantee more revenue. 
 
Pelosi is the dumbest politician to be in such power. That just goes to show how far the Democrat Party has fallen.
 
Remember both sides have to go to their base in order to eventually both meet in the middle. I don't think she meant we don't have a spending problem. She is saying we are not prioritizing our spending(Dems call it investing in our future). She is saying why are we giving Mult-National companies tax subsidies but want to gut programs the poor needs? +Curtis Natalie  Also they are not entitlement programs when you have paid all your working life in them. So get your facts straight.
 
Unhinged babbling... mouth in gear but brain disengaged. 

We avow the First Amendment. We stand with that and say that people have a right to have a gun to protect themselves in their homes and their jobs, where, and that they -- and the workplace and that they, for recreation and hunting and the rest.

Not to mention

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107714711613847705349/posts/LsJfhVWYQUL 

This drivel is still good enough to get you elected in California. 
 
L.A Times State lacks doctors to meet demand of national death care law.SACRAMENTO    "Pelosi March 9, 2010   Got to pass the bill to see that in it"
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

 As the state moves to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Californians under  Obama's healthcare law, it faces a major obstacle: There aren't enough doctors to treat a crush of newly insured patients.

Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.

They are working on proposals that would allow physician assistants to treat more patients and nurse practitioners to set up independent practices. Pharmacists and optometrists could act as primary care providers, diagnosing and managing some chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and high-blood pressure.

"We're going to be mandating that every single person in this state have insurance," said state Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), chairman of the Senate Health Committee and leader of the effort to expand professional boundaries. "What good is it if they are going to have a health insurance card but no access to doctors?"

Hernandez's proposed changes, which would dramatically shake up the medical establishment in California, have set off a turf war with physicians that could contribute to the success or failure of the federal Affordable Death Care Act in California.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it
 
+Curtis Natalie. I should have listed handouts and entitlements separately. They are both spending issues. And you kind of defined them above.
 
+Kehr Bailey  Lets go down your list
1. Eric Cantor( I would agree policy guy but will never get any of his policies passed)
2. Marco Rubio( hasn't done any since coming in the Senate just trying to be GOP great Latino Hope(even though he is Cuban)
3. Rand Paul ( is an unimaginative version of his father at least Ron Paul can articulate himself. Rand just say proactive stuff that sounds more like male version of Sarah Palin)
4.Chris Christie( will probably be out of the party in a few years.. Same way Colin Powell and Jon Huntsman was kicked out)
5. Susana Martinez( Governor of New Mexico really don't know anything about her)
 
How does she always get re-elected?? I'm so glad I left California 
 
+Christian Williams  San Francisco: America’s most liberal county and city are one and the same — proudly represented by the nation’s most powerful female politician — Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Democrats consistently ride to victory in landslides: Obama had 84 percent in 2008 and Kerry had 83 percent in ’04. This is no doubt the bluest part of a blue state — California has more representation (15 percent) on our list of the most liberal places in the U.S. than any other state in the union.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/09/san-francisco-americas-most-liberal-county/#ixzz2Kc9fxOfE
 
+Terry Sansom And I am trying to tell you she is not saying that. She admitted we had deficit problems, but the entitlement programs (maybe just health accounts) is not our problem right now maybe in the long term yes, but not right now. Our problem right now is the lack of growth. And as she pointed out... right now with borrowing cost this low we should be repairing our aging infrastructure. She is not in denial about the spending she is just point right now we need the boost of spending to help fuel growth. And in looking at the last GDP report she has a point
 
Fascinting list +Paris Mosley would you doing as fair a job with the stellar politicians on the left?
 
+Kehr Bailey I guess you forgot about the 2 huge tax cuts, credit card for both the wars and prescription drug bill. Oh maybe you also forgot that Bush didn't veto any spending bills until the Dems took over
 
NEW YORK POST: Wheels coming off
Obama, Pelosi Death Care policies will cost more, cover far fewer than promised
http://www.nypost.com/Page/Uuid/fa30e4fc-73fa-11e2-a4c8-21450be48a0a
The central parts of DeathCare don’t roll out until 2014, but the wheels are already falling off this clunker. The latest news from four federal agencies is that 1) insurance will be a lot less affordable than Americans were led to expect, 2) fewer people than promised will get insurance and 3) millions of people who have coverage through a job now will lose it, thanks to the president’s “reforms.” Oh, and children are the biggest victims.

The Affordable Care Act is looking less and less affordable.

Start with the IRS’s new estimate for what the cheapest family plan will cost by 2016: $20,000 a year to cover two adults and three kids. And that will only cover 60 percent of medical bills, so add hefty out-of-pocket costs, too.
 
+Jay Carlson I would take some of the politicians on the left than some on the right. At least many on the left believe in "Science"....
 
Can't we just blame it all on Bush?  I mean he's the cause of all the problems in the world since the beginning of time.  
 
+Kehr Bailey +Phebe Meyer No it was the Reagan Administration who coined that phrases. As Bill Clinton said most job creations and lower deficits has been under Democrats.(Except for Obama and I can make a good argument on why his deficits are high, but as percentage of GDP. Reagan ran higher deficits)
 
+Darin Walker I am glad you finally caught on

1. Unfunded Wars
2. Drove US standing in the world into the dirt
3. Created another entitlement programs( At least majority of Obamacare is in the private sector)
4. Never veto any spending bills
5. Pushed politically charged taxcuts that barely got out of a GOP controlled congress. That did nothing but increase the income gap in this country
6. Most of the toxic assets in the financial markets was done under him. Don't want to hear the excuse of the community reinvestment act was the cause. He had complete control over congress for a few years
 
Yeah thank God Obama has cut all kinds of spending.  Time for another glass of Kool aid isn't it??
 
+Kehr Bailey I am going to take your first statement. More tax revenues came into the treasury from higher income people not because of good economic growth(i.e Mitt Romney's 47% comments). Secondly under GLB the Dems didn't support the bill. The Vote Tally in Senate was 52R vs 38 nays( all dems voted against the bill) and in the house they rammed it through. Yes I agree there was some deregulated hawks in the Clinton Administration, but make no mistake that bill was driven by the GOP. Also nothing in the CRA requires you too make fraud loans. I guess you forgot that Bush left the true cost of the wars off the balance sheet so we can never get clear picture of the deficits he was runnning
 
+Kehr Bailey Get a clue if you take the emergency supplementals plus the Defense Authorization bills following I am positive that the war cost us more than 800 billion and that is just Iraq. Shit we lost 10 billion in Iraq we still can't find
 
False argument - interesting use of terms - does she ever say it is a false statement?
 
pelosi is a dumb cunt and should be hung.  she's a worthless piece of shit.
 
+Kehr Bailey First, I am not here to defend the Obama Administration I am here to defend "Facts" which you would think should not need to be defended. Obama is running huge deficits to sum it up in two reasons

1. Tax revenues are historically 18-19% of GDP and right now it is  around 15-16%
2. And spending is at 24% of GDP when it is normally 20-21%. Mind you since the consumers are delevagering and don't have access to the cheap credit anymore. consumer spending is down and that correlates with the decline in business investment.  So pretty much right now they only entity that can spend to help grow the economy is the Government(both fiscal and fed policies)

I don't get fascinated with the word "Trillion". I look at what is the percentage of budget deficts to income. In this case GNP is 16 trillion and if you add in all government spending on all level it will be around 50% of GNP. I am sure I can find a lot of people who want their bills to only account for 50% of their income

If you want to take the national debt of 16.5 trillion. Right now US house hold own over 60 trillion dollars in wealth. So any way you chop it up this is very rich nation who just wants its spending but wants its tax cuts as well
 
+Kehr Bailey I didn't say it didn't get bipartisan support I said the bill was speared headed by the GOP and The Hawks in the Clinton Administration. Mind you the bill was sold as it was going create more capital available to help finance mortgages. But I will give you that I mixed up the vote tallying, but again the bill driven by GOP and sold with a bill of Goods that it will help finance mortgages. But even that bill didn't stop regulators from being able to regulate the financial products that were being approve
 
She is an idiot and a liar.  The democrats goal is to collapse the government and replace Capitalism with Communism. Period.
 
No one said Obamacare was not going to cost. The bill is gear more towards access than cost. But I would rather spend money here than a bloat defense department and wars overseas
 
+Paris Mosley question what percentage of our budget goes to the DoD and what percentage of our budget goes to social programs? Look that up and you'll be alarmed.
 
+Steven Swafford It should be alarming to you that many people need the social programs. Also, we spend more than the top 10 countries in the world combined and 90% are our alleys. Let face it Steven the defense department has turned into  slush fund to pay for unwanted defense programs. To fuel jobs in GOP districts
 
+Paris Mosley should examine the US Constitution. National Defense is one of only two mandated functions of the federal gov. Social programs could be more efficiently run at the state level.
 
+Jay Carlson Also the "General Welfare" is part of it as well. I never understand how some treat the Constitution like it is the Bible. Dare I say a bunch old men were wrong? Social programs ran by the states is another way of limited the program for poorer people. And if our history is our guide trusting the states have its limitation
 
+Paris Mosley Yes, you may say, it because the Constitution ensures your freedom of speech. But that does not guarantee that you will not be questioned for your reasoning behind saying it.
Adam K
+
1
2
1
 
She doesn't think so; she's always had someone else pay her bills (i.e. franking priviledges).
 
+Terry Sansom What are you talking about? Please source were you got that they entitlement programs in 10 years will take up 100% of the budget? Also comparing America to Greece is like comparing a giant to a mosquito. First US is bigger economy by long shot. Second the USD is the reserve currency of the world... so in theory we can inflate our way out of our debt and it is nothing the world can do about it.( But that will never happen). Second I know the history of this country. Do you want start when they took the land from Native Americans? Do you want to start when the country accepted slaves? Do you want to start when they wrote blacks were 3/5 of a man in the constitution? What makes America special is the ideals the constitution brings, not the practice the country falls short of that
 
+Terry Sansom Please find another source other than a conservative think tank( think they maybe a little bias). Also the constitution does not say it is America's role to defend democracy. Also the numbers they are using  base line 2011 on medicare when we know in 2012 medicare cost grew at a slower pace than anytime this decade.  Also I really don't trust CBO because they can only forecast on what is existing law(that means congress changes nothing).. and we both know that congress will change the laws based on who occupies the WhiteHouse. Also in the same CBO report Obamacare cuts the deficit over a 10 year period. Also that is assume a slow growth around 1-2% and if that is the case more people will need government assistance
 
Either incompetence, mendacity, lunacy, or Orwellian.  Take your pick.
 
+Kehr Bailey Wow I thought we were having a nice debate but I guess you are now into taking personal shots. If you look at my comment I say I don't trust the CBO numbers on anything, because we know congress will make changes to Obamacare and other programs. Also again as I said the data is based on the economy not growing above the current inflation which both know is not true.. We will get more growth on energy alone. Also as said the CBO can only take current law in their projections. I will show you example

In the fiscal cliff debate if CBO took the numbers that ultimately happen the tax cut deal would have not added 3 trillion over 10 years. But since the had to use the baseline of all the  tax cuts expiring that is why they can up with the 3 trillion over 10 years. But we knew both parties would not have allow all them to be expired.  Also the CBO numbers only look at the budget window out 10 years even some deficit hawk in congress would prefer them to look out in a 20 year window. You can budget out a huge economy like the US on a 10 year window

I guess you miss this report
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/
 
+Kehr Bailey I stated above that I was mistaken on the vote count I read it wrong. Secondly based on what am I ill-informed agitator?
 
+Terry Sansom :) I never said that they didn't need to address the budget. Even Pelosi said that, where I agree with her is that our debt is more long-term than short-term. And in short-term goal should be improving economy and spending on things that will improve economy. As noble as defense spending maybe...it does not improve the economy
 
+Kehr Bailey Maybe so, but I am sure you may need to brush up on your information and stop relaying on those bais conservative think tanks and start looking at the data yourself
 
+Terry Sansom    How has "supply-side work"? Other than a tiny Stimulus package( that 1/3 of was tax cuts) when was Keynesian economics practiced?
 
Keynesian economics has us coming out of dept right? Nothing to see here people keep moving...
 
I agree. Not a spending problem - an undertaxation problem. We can't pay for a federal budget we can't support with federal appropriations.
 
+Paris Mosley Well, I and others do consider the Constitution to be a sacred document. Men bled and died to bring it into existence, and men have since bled and died to defend it.

I knew you would bring up the general welfare. It really doesn't mean social programs. You have to think about the context of the various states wanting to retain their sovereignty yet recognizing the need for a common defense and a means of enforcing contracts, preventing trade wars, and settling disputes between states.

The federal gov has no constitutional authority to run ponzi schemes and entitlement programs make no sense on the federal level. The federal gov drains off wealth from the states, consumes a large portion of it in DC bloat and then trickles the dregs back to the states with strings attached. Do you really think forcing every state into federal one size fits all programs is better than letting the citizens of states decide for them selves what is best?
 
Maybe someday, democrats will come to the realization that Pelosi is indeed senile, and quit voting her into office. I doubt it, though.
 
no, the government spending problem is miniscule...compared to its Pelosi problem.
 
How did she get elected to office???
 
We the people in California are complete idiots cause we keep voting in our officials from the asylum.
 
gas this worthless cunt and do our country a favor.
 
They have no clue how real Americans live. The freeways are overcrowded,gas is over 4.00 a gal.