Pelosi et al are shameless

[Tinykong]

Sure. We can start by cutting spending to those red states that get more from the fed than they put in.

Farming subsidies don't skew those statistics at all.

[Slybak]

She's denying there's even a spending problem.

She's right. There isn't a spending problem, but a spending solution. Spending money during low GDP growth, and especially after a major financial crisis that caused a contraction in GDP, is what a government with sovereign control over its own currency is supposed to do. It's why fiscal policy exists. State and local governments can't do it because they can't finance as much through debt without incurring a hit to their bond rating and thus their future borrowing potential.

The United States Federal government is operating at a negative real interest rate as a result of the recession. In other words, people, in search of a safe store of value, are paying the government to hold on to their money in the form of Treasury Bonds, making it cheaper to finance short-term spending outlays via this debt than to actually collect taxes and pay for them directly.

Calling for contractionary fiscal policy in such an environment isn't just wrong-headed, it's suicidal. The government did it in 1937 and the result was a double-dip recession occurred. Unemployment rose and manufacturing fell to 1931 levels, and this lasted until the government enacted an even larger public spending program known as World War II.

[cutterx2202]

There's however a reason why Fox is not the dominating news network.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...etwork/118218/
^ (Fox and other news channels being irrelevant to this thread because almost the entire clip is Pelosi speaking) first result in "number one news channel" search. Just FYI.

Also, I'm not looking at this as a right is right perspective. This is a fundamental problem both parties contributed to, but just so happens Republicans are the current party to be calling out the problem right now. I can hardly believe you believe what Pelosi is saying. I'm quite awestruck you believed such blatant lies.

[Wildtree]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...etwork/118218/
^ (Fox and other news channels being irrelevant to this thread because almost the entire clip is Pelosi speaking) first result in "number one news channel" search. Just FYI.

Fox declares itself as that. Google picks up Keywords by relevancy in the link.
Search engine optimization is what you see, not what the reality is.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...-years/135443/

The leading news network would be CNN... But I limited it to public TV in my original post
As for pelosi.... Read what Slybak explained.

[Rukentuts]

Farming subsidies don't skew those statistics at all.

Neither do education and poverty levels.

PS: Farm subsidies really don't. Have a nice day.

[Somewowguy]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/215557570...=2114913880001

It's 95% Pelosi talking, so the source of the news channel is irrelevant - these are her own words. I realize some of you have an irrational fear of Fox (AKA: Foxiphobic).

This is the kind of shameless lying, deceit, and incompetence conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis when arguing points.

Pelosi is acting as if there wasn't already a tax hike on the "rich." News flash: There was in January. Asking for ADDITIONAL tax hikes on the rich before cutting is moronic. She's denying there's even a spending problem. On TOP of that, she's saying most of the debt is Bush's fault. (...wow). We're in Obama's second term. It's irrational and childish to keep blaming Bush for current issues. Even if I grant you (hypothetically) that Bush had some responsibility on the initial problem, you'd be naive to say Obama/Pelosi haven't dwarfed whatever affect he's had in the past with THEIR current debts.

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively. Bottom line. It's come to the point that if someone's primary political goal isn't to cut the spending and pay off the debt first and foremost, it's not even worth starting an argument with them as they're delusional about the state of our nation. All other issues are secondary and will, in fact, improve with no debt and a budget in the green (or balanced).

Open your eyes and see her for the scum she is (and other far left wing nuts like her) for her flat out deceit.

After reading all the posts in this thread, the only thing I want is for you to put me on that super special ignore list you threaten people with. You, Pelosi, Bush, Obama, me, all of us are the reason the country is failing. The excess, the waste, the finger pointing, the name calling. The golden age is almost over. Cut spending while our children cant do simple math? Cut spending when our roads and bridges are falling apart? Lower taxes for the rich because "its the american dream"?

The last sentence in your first post, and your sig pretty much sums up who you are and the agenda you stand behind. The left doesnt have the answers. The right doesnt have the answers. So they play the blame game to focus your attention away from the actual problems, and people like you eat it up.

The US gov't needs to put a 24 hr cooldown on political hunter's misdirection ability, its OP against the stupid.

[cutterx2202]

Updated OP for those too lazy to read the whole thread and blame me for lack of ideas.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 05:23 PM ----------

.

You linked overall TV network, not news...

[Orbitus]

Welcome to ignore. Besides non of that being on topic, it also reeked heavily of the radical type Palosi is. I don't know where you come up with your material, but it's not funny, and it's no where near reality.

LOL gets called out on his crap claim, doesn't like the facts, doesn't want a conversation, only wants people to agree with him, starts ignoring people. How do you feel about talking to yourself while everyone else is having a conversation without you? There has been many posts in this thread so far that have disproved your facts you have thrown out and you still ignore them because you ignore the people writing them. That doesn't make sense.

[Deleted]

cutterx, you do not know the meaning of either Far Left or rationality. One of the foundations of Keynesian economics is that you save in times of growth, so that you can spend in times of need. This hasn't really happened in any modern government for a considerable time: for example, there's a chart dating back to the Second World War showing that, with rare exception, Democrats have reduced deficits (through both spending cuts and taxation increases) whilst Republicans iont he White house have made some increases in the deficit.

Moreover, there are three places where you could safely cut budgets, when matched with legal reforms: for example, IP law (copyrights and patents, for the most part) takes up a considerable amount of R&D costs in tech fields, which inhibit startups and innovations though legal costs (see also: Aereo, Kirtsaeng). Radical legal reforms in these two areas alone could boost the economy by a projected $500bn in the US alone.

And as for Fox being either "fair and balanced" or "the #1 News Channel", I have to mock you, because it's not actual news, nor is it fair and balanced. Fox actually went tot he Supreme Court over something which in any other country would be slander (a case where two employees were fired because they refused to read on-air what was full of lies and deceit.)

[Tinykong]

Neither do education and poverty levels.

PS: Farm subsidies really don't. Have a nice day.

You're right, I forgot, $10-15 billion is pretty meaningless.

[Wildtree]

Updated OP for those too lazy to read the whole thread and blame me for lack of ideas.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 05:23 PM ----------

You linked overall TV network, not news...

On networks its CNN... It's a pure news network. yet it's not on public tv, and requires a lot of self education to understand it properly. CNN is at it's root the USA's most neutral news network. It allows biased contribution by it's reporters and news hosts as well.
You need to be intelligent enough to know what's now left wing bias, or right wing bias, or which is now absolutely neutral.
On that end CNN is the lone player in the news pool.
Of the public news only CBS and ABC offer rather neutral journalism. Fox, which has the least viewers amongst the 4 key players (NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS), and NBC which has the most viewers, are biased.

[cutterx2202]

LOL gets called out on his crap claim, doesn't like the facts, doesn't want a conversation, only wants people to agree with him, starts ignoring people. How do you feel about talking to yourself while everyone else is having a conversation without you? There has been many posts in this thread so far that have disproved your facts you have thrown out and you still ignore them because you ignore the people writing them. That doesn't make sense.

You can't disprove facts, FYI. No one has disproved anything I've said, and they still make it to ignore. I find it hilarious you see the conversation going that way. All I've stated are facts you can look up. A) we have a big spending problem b) all that's left to try and remedy that is cutting the budget.

See the update OP.

[araine]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/215557570...=2114913880001

It's 95% Pelosi talking, so the source of the news channel is irrelevant - these are her own words. I realize some of you have an irrational fear of Fox (AKA: Foxiphobic).

This is the kind of shameless lying, deceit, and incompetence conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis when arguing points.

Pelosi is acting as if there wasn't already a tax hike on the "rich." News flash: There was in January. Asking for ADDITIONAL tax hikes on the rich before cutting is moronic. She's denying there's even a spending problem. On TOP of that, she's saying most of the debt is Bush's fault. (...wow). We're in Obama's second term. It's irrational and childish to keep blaming Bush for current issues. Even if I grant you (hypothetically) that Bush had some responsibility on the initial problem, you'd be naive to say Obama/Pelosi haven't dwarfed whatever affect he's had in the past with THEIR current debts.

America MUST cut spending, and cut it massively. Bottom line. It's come to the point that if someone's primary political goal isn't to cut the spending and pay off the debt first and foremost, it's not even worth starting an argument with them as they're delusional about the state of our nation. All other issues are secondary and will, in fact, improve with no debt and a budget in the green (or balanced).

Open your eyes and see her for the scum she is (and other far left wing nuts like her) for her flat out deceit.

Edit:
(because it's getting longer and expecting people to read the whole thing is not going to happen):

We do NOT have a spendind problem we have still a very very BIG revenue problem. Facts hurt and if you think the fiscal cliff deal was all revenue needed to save the country you are sadly mistaken we need to close LOOPHOLES really it is basically the same LOOPHOLES that Romney thought was good to close ( The problem with his idea of closing was that he was opening up massive amount of taxcuts ( which we can NOT afford, Check the outcome of the last decade if you think it was a fantastic decade))


Just because a right wing nutcase on FOX or on Radio says we cant afford more revenue being raised it doesnt make it true. Never have revenue been lower as part of GDP and our spending is way down under Obama ( If you want to discuss this and the negative effects of cutting spending in a recession be my guest)

[ScottsdaleHokie]

You're right, I forgot, $10-15 billion is pretty meaningless.

Considering the federal government spends about 7 billion dollars a minute, yes, it is.

[Endus]

You can't disprove facts, FYI. No one has disproved anything I've said, and they still make it to ignore. I find it hilarious you see the conversation going that way. All I've stated are facts you can look up. A) we have a big spending problem b) all that's left to try and remedy that is cutting the budget.

Neither of those are "facts", and b) is just flat-out wrong.

A "fact" is something that is objectively true. In reference to the budget, that would be to say that spending is at X dollars, or has increased by Y%, or the like. The moment you label that a "problem", you are stating an opinion, not a fact.

And cutting the budget is clearly not the only solution. You can either cut spending, or increase revenue. Increasing revenue is clearly also an option, you're just refusing to acknowledge it for some reason you've never stated.


And before anyone posts some nonsense about the Laffer curve and how increasing taxation will hurt revenue, most reputable economists who aren't flogging a political agenda are in agreement that the US is on the left side of the Laffer curve with regards to taxation, so increasing taxation would increase revenue, which isn't surprising, given that US tax rates are pretty low overall relative to other nations.

[Tinykong]

Considering the federal government spends about 7 billion dollars a minute, yes, it is.

It's not spending $7 billion a minute on subsidies, which is what we're talking about. Claiming that "red states" receive more government payouts than "blue states" and then ignoring farm subisides is about as ignorant as it gets.

[cutterx2202]

cutterx, you do not know the meaning of either Far Left or rationality. One of the foundations of Keynesian economics is that you save in times of growth, so that you can spend in times of need. This hasn't really happened in any modern government for a considerable time: for example, there's a chart dating back to the Second World War showing that, with rare exception, Democrats have reduced deficits (through both spending cuts and taxation increases) whilst Republicans iont he White house have made some increases in the deficit.

Moreover, there are three places where you could safely cut budgets, when matched with legal reforms: for example, IP law (copyrights and patents, for the most part) takes up a considerable amount of R&D costs in tech fields, which inhibit startups and innovations though legal costs (see also: Aereo, Kirtsaeng). Radical legal reforms in these two areas alone could boost the economy by a projected $500bn in the US alone.

And as for Fox being either "fair and balanced" or "the #1 News Channel", I have to mock you, because it's not actual news, nor is it fair and balanced. Fox actually went tot he Supreme Court over something which in any other country would be slander (a case where two employees were fired because they refused to read on-air what was full of lies and deceit.)

Thanks for the laugh - showing you haven't read what I've wrote and want to stuff words in my mouth. Great first impression. No where have I bolstered Fox and said it's fair and balanced, nor any other news network for that matter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saying something doesn't make it true. Feel free to look up definitions for both left and rational and map them to the conversation. Pelosi's ACTIONS show she is far left. I use reason, you should, too. Please don't color what is actually written with what you THINK is written (ie: saying I've bolstered fox because I linked to it.)

[araine]

cutterx, you do not know the meaning of either Far Left or rationality. One of the foundations of Keynesian economics is that you save in times of growth, so that you can spend in times of need. This hasn't really happened in any modern government for a considerable time: for example, there's a chart dating back to the Second World War showing that, with rare exception, Democrats have reduced deficits (through both spending cuts and taxation increases) whilst Republicans iont he White house have made some increases in the deficit.

Moreover, there are three places where you could safely cut budgets, when matched with legal reforms: for example, IP law (copyrights and patents, for the most part) takes up a considerable amount of R&D costs in tech fields, which inhibit startups and innovations though legal costs (see also: Aereo, Kirtsaeng). Radical legal reforms in these two areas alone could boost the economy by a projected $500bn in the US alone.

And as for Fox being either "fair and balanced" or "the #1 News Channel", I have to mock you, because it's not actual news, nor is it fair and balanced. Fox actually went tot he Supreme Court over something which in any other country would be slander (a case where two employees were fired because they refused to read on-air what was full of lies and deceit.)

It is common sense economics that worked for centuries on the farm, You saved up supplies and stuff when you had a good year and it covered years when the harvest was poor. But in todays economic world the good year needs to be taken out as cuts to this and cuts to that and it is assumed this good year is the norm and that all years are good and that we will always grow so not taking it out as taxcuts is stupid ( this is what reaganomics and the GOP have been arguing for the last 3-4 decades, Obviously it doesnt work just check the track record of deficit under republicans in office in the last 35 years)

[Grizzly Willy]

You're right, I forgot, $10-15 billion is pretty meaningless.

Depends on what their impact is. If the subsidies are a large percentage of that funding, then they're not meaningless. If they're a small percentage, then they are relatively meaningless.

[araine]

Thanks for the laugh - showing you haven't read what I've wrote and want to stuff words in my mouth. Great first impression. No where have I bolstered Fox and said it's fair and balanced, nor any other news network for that matter.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Saying something doesn't make it true. Feel free to look up definitions for both left and rational and map them to the conversation. Pelosi's ACTIONS show she is far left. I use reason, you should, too. Please don't color what is actually written with what you THINK is written (ie: saying I've bolstered fox because I linked to it.)

Center left at the most she is not a communist or a socialist dont even try to go there. She tells the facts as they are and of course the far right goes all ballistic on facts, hint: they always do that