Attention...Nancy Pelosi Commits Suicide

[Smokinjoe-VRCCDS#0005]

I pretty much stay away from all the political BS that flows on this board however in wake of tomorrow's election .................Who can't be topical  

[laserpat]

 

[JimL]

 

Joe at least the one political post you did enter into, was done with style!

[DIGGER]

Naw....can't be Pelosi......looks too good for her.

[Sludge]

LOL OUTSTANDING Joe!   

[Big Rig]

Poor Telephone Pole....

[Bill]

Too bad it took so long to happen!

[ILcruiser]

Headline pun of the day:  "Nancy Pelosi does not fare well in pole."

[Spirited-6]

See what happens when you hurry to "GET OUT OF DODGE" She saw it coming. 

[Chrisj CMA]

Was if suicide, or did she fall asleep at the stick   

[Bigdog]

we could only be soooooo lucky.....by the way, Bush installed the telephone pole.....

[firea100]

Must of been one of her infamous trips back to California to check in on her constituants!

[HayHauler]

She shouldn't be texting and "flying" her stick...  hehehe

Hay 
Jimmyt

[Oss]

 

[musclehead]

cant be nancy, I dont see any botox

[Walküre]

Just like you guys - a picture of Christine "I am NOT a witch!" O'donnell, and you turn it into Pelosi...

Rachel Maddow On President Obama & Democrats Accomplishments	powered by Aeva

[Sludge]

Roger, ... there just isnt any help for you if you believe everything that that gal says...

[Bobbo]

Pelosi fits, but I agree it would be more appropriate and timely to use Christine O’Donnell in the joke!

[Jeff K]

Pelosi fits, but I agree it would be more appropriate and timely to use Christine O’Donnell in the joke!

No, Christine clearly said she is not a witch, on the other hand Nancy has never denied it. 

[Bobbo]

Pelosi fits, but I agree it would be more appropriate and timely to use Christine O’Donnell in the joke!

No, Christine clearly said she is not a witch, on the other hand Nancy has never denied it. 

Nixon:  “I am not a crook.”
Clinton:  “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

When did you start believing what politicians say they’re NOT?!


    

[3fan4life]

  IF ONLY IT WERE TRUE 

[Billy]

Thanks Walkure for post up that Maddow link. She goes down one by one the legislative achievements of the Dem congress. Nancy produced and that is why the big boys in the R
epublican party hate and demonize her. During that time the Repubs sat on the side, doing everything they could to block these bills. She was right on the money in that Obama and the Dems during this time governed while the Repubs turned on the the most vicious fear and smear machine their Corporate leaders could come up with.

Over 3 million manufacturing jobs were lost since 2000 and will never come back. Our economy is in the toilet. 3.2 billion Chinese are laughing their asses off at us. We face a gridlock in Congress now and nothing will get accomplished.
The country is polarized, and we still amuse ourselves with asassination humor and who is or isn't a witch.
Yuk yuk

[Walküre]

To make things worse, the Chinese government is very involved and concerned with the election. Not that the Repubs will win, but that they won't. The Republican theory of deregulation, and every man out for himself, has led to a 16% gain in the Chinese economy, at the expense of America. And they want more than anything else, that "redistribution of wealth" to be America's wealth - what little is LEFT of it - to China. Way to go!!

I lose all faith in a people, that has been brain-washed to vote against their own better interests. And led by the nose ring, by the corporations, that they pledge their allegiance to.

And "no hope for me", Sludge?? You want to start with people, NOT to believe?? You TRULY don't want to go there...

[Rams]

I see the division that splits the nation is duplicated here.  Socialism versus Capitalism.  Big Government versus Less Government.  Big Brother takes care of us all.  Personal accountability run amuck.  Hope and Change we can believe in,  Yeah, right.

blackrams   

[Walküre]

I see the division that splits the nation is duplicated here.  Socialism versus Capitalism.  Big Government versus Less Government.  Big Brother takes care of us all.  Personal accountability run amuck.  Hope and Change we can believe in,  Yeah, right.

blackrams   

It all depends on how you look at it - Socialism versus Capitalism?? If you buy into that...

Many of us feel it's more about caring for America, and Americans, over the corporations that are solely in it for the greed and the money...

We're tired of the lies, spewed out, like the increase of the deficit - Bush's last budget added 1.4 trillion, Obama's added 1.2 trillion. The new Republicorp math, says that 1.2 is 3 times 1.4.

The unemployed gained 750,000 members the last month of the Bush term. We were hemorrhaging jobs at an unbearable rate. That has ended.

The BUSH administration bailed out the banks. BUSH signed it into law. NOT Obama. But, Obama is blamed for it. Obama kept several auto companies from going under, with all the unemployment and devastation THAT would have caused. But now that that was prevented, suddenly it was the WRONG thing to do. And as was stated here, one of the members still has a car company to work for - maybe not the one he WAS with. But if GM had gone under, he'd most certainly be unemployed, or at the very least, working for Ford...

Obama's Stimulus gave the American middle class the largest tax cut, ever. $800, instead of the $400 the Bush giveaway to the wealthy did.

8 years of utter destruction, and people expect it to be solved, in less than two, with the party of NO! fighting each and every single attempt.

You'll get what you deserve. That's all I'll say on it. Unfortunately, you're going to drag the rest of us down with you. When the whole country is at the mercy of the ALL-DEVOURING corporations, remember how vigorously you fought for it...

Geez...

R

[Rams]

Yep, it's all Bush's fault.  The fact that Dems controlled Congress six of those years had nothing to do with it.  Put the blame where ever you wish but we're headed down the road to third world status and this Congress and Administration is playing Pied Piper. 

Personal responsibility and accountability are paramount.  There are no free rides and yet, that's all this administration  wants to do.  Geeze my royal buttocks.  Barry's time is limited.  One and Done.  Now if only that really was Pelowsi I could sleep better.

blackrams   

[Billy]

Well said. Just remember those companies that moved to China still have American owners and stockholders. The Clinton/Bush presidencies saw a jump in wealth of 407 percent for the 400 richest families in American while many in the middle class stagnated and slipped into poverty. There is a shift in wealth alright, but it is not downward, it is going to a few at the top. Worry about Socialism? Me thinks one should be way more concerned with a Fascist Oligarcy taking over this country.

[fstsix]

All that BAILOUT money from Taxpayers!!,,, And they FILED for Bankruptcy and went through it anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WTF are you on Drugs!! the Auto Industry needed to restructure without the Help of Taxpayers! OH BROTHER this crap is not even worth typing a response 

[Walküre]

All that BAILOUT money from Taxpayers!!,,, And they FILED for Bankruptcy and went through it anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WTF are you on Drugs!! the Auto Industry needed to restructure without the Help of Taxpayers! OH BROTHER this crap is not even worth typing a response 

The BAILOUT money, that is being paid back AT A PROFIT!! On drugs?? And restructure without the help of the American people??? That's the biggest problem we have - this "I've got mine, F**K you!!" that has permeated our society. As long as it doesn't affect ME, it doesn't exist!!! Or it's YOUR OWN FAULT that you can't afford health care. And if you think that giving even MORE to the wealthy, in the hopes that a few crumbs will "trickle down", then you, my friend, are the one ON DRUGS!! Once again, you can look at the following - the biggest boom and growth this country experienced the last two centuries, was when tax rates on the very wealthiest was at the highest. Read it and weep (you CAN read, can't you? Or are you a victim of "socialized" education??).

crbest.com/taxes

So, all of you that want government OUT of your life, are you going to give back your social security? And Medicare? I mean, socialism is such a terrible thing...

B-a-a-a-h, b-a-a-a-h, b-a-a-a-a-hhh!

[Rams]

Socialism has failed repeatedly throughout history and yet, some think they can beat those odds.  Barry is at least a Socialist leaning heavily towards Marxism.  Social Security was doomed from the start but, those on the receiving end don't mind leaving those to follow in deep, deep debt.  Yeah, to protect my kids and their kids future, I'd give up SS.  I don't expect it to be of much benefit by the time I retire anyway.  And I'm an old fart.

There is no such thing as a free ride.  Eventually, someone has to pony up and pay the Piper.  I'd rather that be this generation than those to follow. 

blackrams

[fstsix]

 Rewarding people for BAD behavioral Dose NOT solve the problem..Do you think all those Bankers and CEO's would have sill had their Billion dollar Bonuses W/O the help of the Fed's !!!! they would be OUT ON THEIR A$$$ Obama Motors owns over 50% of the stock now so he is Paying himself!! BTW SSI was designed to Be a Individual TRUST!!! NOT to put into the Slush Funds....Yes they should GIVE IT BACK!! THE way FDR designed it!! 

[fstsix]

Obama's Failed and Tired Ideas From the Past
The following op/ed appeared in American Spectator online on February 11, 2009

The entire U.S. GDP is roughly $14 trillion. The government currently spends roughly $3.5 trillion of that. In his stimulus plan, Obama proposes effectively to borrow another $1 trillion from the private economy to add to $1 trillion in still further government spending.

How exactly is that supposed to stimulate economic growth and recovery? Is America's economic growth and prosperity produced by increased government spending, deficits, and debt? I don't think so. The American people don't either.

But Barack Obama thinks it is so obvious it's funny. Speaking before a laughing House Democrat Caucus last week, he said, "So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? [HaHa]. That's the whole point. [HaHa]. No, seriously. That's the whole point. [HaHaHa]."

As the Wall Street Journal said over the weekend:

So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it.

In fact, there is no net gain to the economy from this stimulus fraud, which is all the more obvious when you look at what Obama and his hopeless liberals spend the money on. There is funding for federal baby sitting programs, for needles for drug addicts, for federal birth control programs and condoms, for the National Endowment for the Arts, and for increased welfare. In fact, 30% of the stimulus spending is for increased welfare. Is this the foundation for future American prosperity?"

As the Journal further explained:

A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP. But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative.

Moreover, as I have emphasized in this column, what drives economic growth is incentives to save, invest, start or expand businesses, create jobs, take risks, and work. Incentives are increased through reductions in tax rates and unnecessary regulatory costs, which allows people to keep a higher percentage of what they produce. But for the government to borrow a trillion dollars from the private economy to increase government spending by a trillion dollars does nothing to increase such incentives.

Keynesian Economics

Keynesian economics was born in the 1930s, was always a failure in life, even though it was heavily favored because it justified expanded government power, and died at the end of the 1970s, when it was slayed by Ronald Reagan in self-defense.

Keynesian theory argued that the way to stimulate the economy was precisely to increase government spending and deficits, because this would increase total aggregate demand in the economy, stimulating producers to produce more to meet this demand. The discussion above shows why this theory is wrong. Keynesians failed to consider where the government would get the money for its increased spending, and the offsetting economic impact of that. Moreover, they failed to appreciate that it is economic incentives that drive the economy.

That is why it has always failed over and over. FDR embraced Keynesian economics as the cornerstone of his New Deal. As a result, federal spending soared during the 1930s to the equivalent of a trillion dollars a year today. Yet Census Bureau data shows that the unemployment rate for nonfarm sectors never fell below 20% during the decade. By the end of the 1930s, the U.S. economy was still 10% smaller than it was in 1929. The stock market did not return to its 1929 levels until 1954.

Amity Shlaes told this revealing story recently in the Washington Post:

One evening in the 1930s, a 13-year-old named William Troeller hanged himself from the transom of his bedroom in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. William's father was laid up in Kings County Hospital awaiting surgery for an injury he'd suffered on the job at Brooklyn Edison. A federal jobs program was paying William's older brother Harold for temporary work. But the amount wasn't nearly enough to make ends meet. Gas and electricity to the family's apartment had been shut off for half a year. Harold told a New York Times reporter that both hunger and modesty had driven William to act. 'He was reluctant about asking for food,' read the headline in the paper….The surprising part is that William Troeller killed himself not in 1930, when Herbert Hoover was president, but in 1937, in Franklin D. Roosevelt's second term. The New Deal was almost five years old, but the economy was not back. In fact, the country seemed farther from recovery than before.

By the end of the 1930s, even FDR's Treasury Secretary and close personal friend Henry Morgenthau told the House Ways and Means Committee, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.…I say, after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot."

For a more recent example, Japan suffered an economic crisis in 1991 very similar to what the U.S. is suffering now, with collapsing stock and housing bubbles. They turned to old-fashioned Keynesian economics, increasing government spending by the equivalent of $900 billion in the U.S. today. As a result, Japan fell backwards during the 1990s just as the U.S. fell backwards in the 1930s. Japan's per capita national income fell from 86% of the U.S. level in 1991 to 74% in 2000.

Obama has repeatedly told us in recent days that he will not return to the old, failed, tired ideas of the past to address America's economic problems. But that is exactly what he is doing in subjecting America to the outdated, failed theories of Keynesian economics from the 1930s. He even proposes now to bring back FDR's old Works Progress Administration (WPA), which spent the equivalent of hundreds of billions today building the infrastructure of the 1930s. As we saw above, it did not work to revive the economy.

Harvard economist Robert Barro recently wrote that we have learned a lot about macroeconomics since 1936, when the father of Keynesianism, British Economist John Maynard Keynes, wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. But none of it seems to have seeped through to Barack Obama. Joe DiMaggio was a rookie in 1936, and Babe Ruth had just retired.

Supply-Side Economics

By the end of the 1970s, Keynesian economics was killing the American economy, with double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation, and soon double-digit unemployment. It was called stagflation -- stagnant economic growth along with roaring inflation. According to Keynesian theory, this result was impossible. You couldn't be both overspending to cause inflation and underspending to cause stagnation.

Reagan did the right thing for all concerned, and put Keynesian economics out of its misery. He adopted tight, anti-inflation monetary policies that worked spectacularly to reduce inflation to 3% by 1983. Then to get economic growth booming, he adopted sharp cuts in marginal tax rates, reducing the top marginal income tax rate from 70% first to 50%, then cutting it further all the way down to 28%, with just one more rate of 15% for middle income workers and below. He also adopted sharp cuts in corporate income tax rates and capital gains tax rates, as well as a thorough program of deregulation reducing business costs.

The Keynesian economists of the time all laughed, with one of the smartest making the celebrated comment that the Reagan economic plan was the equivalent of tying locomotives to both ends of the same train facing opposite directions and sending them both forward full throttle. Under Keynesian analysis, this is, indeed, what it was.

But besides the rapid elimination of serious inflation, the result was what economists Art Laffer and Steve Moore have recently explained was a 25-year economic boom, from 1982 to 2007, disrupted only by two short, shallow recessions. In their new book, The End of Prosperity, Laffer and Moore write,

"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom -- the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."

Indeed, the result was a worldwide boom lifting many nations towards greater prosperity, aided by spreading global adoption of the same policies. These policies were called "supply-side" economics, because they focused on increasing supply instead of the Keynesian focus on increasing aggregate demand.

Obama's No-Growth Tax Cuts

Obama and his defenders keep saying his stimulus package includes a balance of tax cuts as well as increased government spending, alleging that "We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as the answer to all our problems." But Obama's tax cuts are Keynesian "garbage" as well, as Barro recently called them.

The centerpiece of Obama's tax cuts is, again, the $500 per worker tax credit. But that credit is the equivalent of just sending a welfare check of $500 to everyone, as far as economic stimulus is concerned. It is just another way of trying to increase overall spending, just like the Bush stimulus "tax" rebates adopted early in 2008, which also failed utterly to revive the economy. Neither those Bush rebates nor the Obama credits do anything to change the fundamental incentives that govern the economy, the incentives to save, invest, start or expand a business, take risks, etc. That requires supply-side tax cuts which reduce tax rates, as we have seen.

But for Obama, time stopped in 1979, and he talks and acts as if Reagan and everything he did never happened. While he says he is interested only in what works, not ideology, just the opposite is true. He won't consider the tax rate cuts that worked spectacularly for Reagan, and Kennedy, and Bush also, because of his unreconstructed liberal/left ideology. Instead he is embracing just what that ideology commands, a trillion dollar addition to spending, the deficit, and Big Government. Obama is developing a pattern of saying the opposite of what he is doing, which is another Saul Alinsky tactic.

The Gingrich Revolution

In sharp contrast to Obama and his ideological delusions, Newt Gingrich has recently offered an economic recovery plan that is based on modern economics and what would work. It includes a reduction in the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to the 12.5% rate that over the past 20 years has lifted the standard of living in Ireland from the bottom of the EU to the top. It would eliminate the capital gains tax to match China, Singapore, and other international competitors, enticing capital investment from the world over to America. It would provide middle class tax relief by reducing the 25% income tax bracket to 15%, establishing a flat rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of American workers. He would also cut the payroll tax by 50% for 2 years.

Gingrich also proposes to control government spending to balance the budget, something he achieved when he was Speaker of the House. He would adopt a real, comprehensive energy program that would allow production of domestic U.S. oil and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, clean coal, ethanol, and renewable fuels. He would also protect the current federal right of workers to decide in a secret ballot election whether to join a union, replace the extremely costly, heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulation that has crippled entrepreneurial start-ups in America, and abolish the death tax, among other provisions.

If Congress were adopting these reforms this week instead of the retro Obama "stimulus" package, the American economy would be off on another historic boom before the end of the year. Maybe we need a new President already.

Party Like It's 1979

Obama's ideological nostalgia for the liberal salad days of pre-Reagan 1979 is going to take the entire U.S. economy back there. Over time, we will find that Obama's policies have led us back to persistently high unemployment, resurgent inflation, double digit interest rates, stagnating growth, even gas shortages and the high gas prices he supports as good for the environment. And that will also effectively be another pre-Reagan moment as well.

Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

[Michvalk]

Joe... Funny!!!

[Walküre]

Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union.

I re-iterate, b-a-a-a-a-h, b-a-a-a-a-h, b-b-a-a-a-a-h-h-!

http://www.ipi.org/ - Yeah, trust THIS guy!!





Geez....

[fstsix]

Just give that money away 100% no down payment From Fannie and freddie mac,,, This is a prime example of the Left and their Lies!! and why we are in this MESS!!! HAhahahahahahahahahaha!!!   

Don't Regulate Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac	powered by Aeva

[Chrisj CMA]

Just give that money away 100% no down payment From Fannie and freddie mac,,, This is a prime example of the Left and their Lies!! and why we are in this MESS!!! HAhahahahahahahahahaha!!!   Don't Regulate Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac

Watters Reins Frank....they all need to go along with Pelosi and Ried and of course IMPEACH OBAMA

[musclehead]

All that BAILOUT money from Taxpayers!!,,, And they FILED for Bankruptcy and went through it anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WTF are you on Drugs!! the Auto Industry needed to restructure without the Help of Taxpayers! OH BROTHER this crap is not even worth typing a response 

The BAILOUT money, that is being paid back AT A PROFIT!! On drugs?? And restructure without the help of the American people??? That's the biggest problem we have - this "I've got mine, F**K you!!" that has permeated our society. As long as it doesn't affect ME, it doesn't exist!!! Or it's YOUR OWN FAULT that you can't afford health care. And if you think that giving even MORE to the wealthy, in the hopes that a few crumbs will "trickle down", then you, my friend, are the one ON DRUGS!! Once again, you can look at the following - the biggest boom and growth this country experienced the last two centuries, was when tax rates on the very wealthiest was at the highest. Read it and weep (you CAN read, can't you? Or are you a victim of "socialized" education??).

crbest.com/taxes

So, all of you that want government OUT of your life, are you going to give back your social security? And Medicare? I mean, socialism is such a terrible thing...

B-a-a-a-h, b-a-a-a-h, b-a-a-a-a-hhh!

I would give up my social security if I recieved  some kind of tax break to make up for it. I'm betting I could put it in a roth IRA and get a better return.

[Gear Jammer]

Good one Joe.     But I'm not sure if the word witch is spelled correctly   

[big turkey]

Well I can only dream, that was a good one.

AL

[fudgie]

The differeance tween that Christy chic and Nancy is that, as Joe puts it, I'd hit that.    I'd hit Nancy to but with a different object. 

We're always gonna disagree with what is going on in the White House. No doubt. There will always be debt. A Jackson was the only prez to have no debt.

Glad I voted for no D or R this year. The Sherriff race is the only one I did.