Dont you just love Nancy Pelosi trying to sound important while babling? Is like watching some British comedy. You know is supposed to be funny, you just cant tell when to laugh

yeah, next time i see her talk, i want to make sure it's on my old non-HD tv. *shudder*

Nancy Pelosi is best viewed with the sound turned off and making up dialog for her

You know the Lucasfilm actually created the Pelosi character, but dropped her in favor of Jar Jar Binks.

Some people, like Ms. Pelosi, shouldn't be meant to be viewed on TV at all. She really irritates me.

I only have a radio, and just the sound of her voice is grating.

Democratic rebuttals meets Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

"I'm talking now. Look at my skull trying to jump out of my face."

Like I said while live blogging at La Shawn's:
Somebody tell Disneyland one of the animatronics got away, and is the house minority leader!

Adjusting the brightness control on the tv didn't help the democratic response either.

So I made a salad while they were yapping.

I personally thought this was one of Bush's better speaches. No garbled words or anything, lol.

RightWingDuck: Ive done the MST3K thing to a lot of stuff I've watched, but i've never tried it on political stuff. I should try it sometime.

I missed the SoU and rebuttal, but I bet the rebuttal sounded something like this:
Blah blah blah blah blah Bush = Hitler blah blah blah blah death toll blah blah no freedom blah blah blah will oppose every nomination blah blah blah blah worse off than four years ago blah blah blah blah our soldiers commiting atrocities in Iraq.
Anyone who watched it: how close am I?

Reid's actual words about the deficit:

[I]n effect, a "birth tax" of $36,000 on every child that is born.
We Democrats have a different vision:"

Saving children from ever paying that tax by aborting them before they are born.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with characterizing the national debt as a birth tax? It's not technically accurate - you don't start paying against it until well after you're born - but the only way for it not to be a $36,000 monkey on every kid's back is to either pay it off before they start paying taxes(not bloody likely), or to just pay interest costs forever, which is actually a lot more expensive.

Let's be honest here - any actual conservative should be able to acknowledge that Bush's budget politicies are utter insanity, and that running a half-trillion dollar annual deficit is rediculous. Really, what is the world coming to when Democrats can attack a Republican's overspending and be correct about it? We shouldn't be open to attacks from the right from the party of trade unionists and hippies.

I agree that Bush has been a wee bit overzealous with his spending, but most of the deficit is from the war, and, hello, what are we supposed to do about that? Wars are expensive. At least tax dollars aren't go to some drugged out hippy. Or worse yet, schools! (just KIDDING)

I thought it was a great speech. Wasn't it extra special how almost none of the dems ever clapped?

I could swear that this one senator from Virginia was sleeping. (he was a republican, though. Wake up buddy) I don't really know if that has anything to do with anything, but....

Oh, and what if I'm a really SMART evil spammer who knows how to read codes and type them in? Dun dun dun! I'm done.

Aldasius is right; these deficits in excess of $400 billion are utterly inconsistent with conservatism. And the non-Social Security deficit, which is the real number to pay attention to, is close to $600 billion! But Jen, it's not just the war, although that's a part of it. Far and away the biggest contributor to the deficit is the unaffordable Republican income tax cuts and estate tax cuts.

OMG some one said MST3K, none of the youngens know what I am talking about at work, makes me feel old as hell. I used to MST3K my wife's soaps it drove her bat s*it crazy, sadly I think this affected her mind and why she voted for Nader.

any way Pelosi reminds me that creature from aliens, and not the pretty one eather.

Joel - it's not the tax cuts that are unaffordable, it's government spending that is unaffordable.

Bubba gave us wartime taxation in peacetime, hence the surplus. Bush gave us peacetime taxes and we find ourselves at war, and it's a problem.

To say that you cannot afford my prosperity, though, is ridiculous. And so Stalin. Let's collectivize agriculture now. Anyone who owns property is unaffordable.

McWert Deglieb: The Iraq war costs "only" about $100 billion per year; the Federal deficit excluding Social Security is about $600 billion per year, so the Iraq war is "only" less than 20% of the problem.

And, this WAS a war of choice; Iraq did not threaten us; there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; there were no WMD; there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection; it is doubtful that Congress would have voted to authorize this war if the Bush administration had provided accurate estimates of the costs in money and lives, and not hyped the non-existent WMD.

Because the Iraq war is "only" less than 20% of the non-Social Security deficit, and the war was the choice of Mr. Bush, a choice Congress would not have agreed to if truth had prevaied, your analysis of Bush vs. Clinton economics is incorrect.

Nobody, certainly not I, says that America can't afford your prosperity. The problem with the Republican tax cuts is that most of the benefits are going to those who were already extremely prosperous, even after paying their share of what it costs to make America a nice place to live.

You fret that government spending is unaffordable. I certainly support you in your effort to cut wasteful federal spending. But what do you want to cut? Foreign aid? It's less than 1% of the federal budget; there's not much room there. Head Start? It's a program that saves several dollars for each dollar invested, by reducing costs for dealing with juvenile delinqency and remedial education. Yet two in five eligible children are turned away due to under-funding. We would actually save money by spending more on Head Start. Perhaps you believe that federal spending contains billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse. Well, identify it! But remember, even if you can come up with $50 billion in program cuts you would make, that would solve less than 10% of the non-Social Security deficit. This comment is not addressed to you personally, but it's the Republican tax cuts, stupid!

Finally, please remember that about half of the American voters agree with this analysis, and we're not Stalinists, Marxists, or communists. We believe in free markets, free enterprise, and private property, just like you do.

Thanks for the lecture, you're a lot of fun.

Speaking of choices, Bill Clinton chose to cover up terrorist attacks whenever convenient. TWA 800 was shot down, but it was too close to an election to let people think it might be a terrorist act.

Police investigators on the scene at Oklahoma City said the only direction the investigation was going was Middle Eastern terrorists, until Bubba proclaimed it was not possible. John Doe 2 was in the Iraqi Republican Guard in the 1st war, and was working at Logan Airport on 9-11-01.

And your war on poverty has been as effective as the war in Vietnam: you refuse to let us win. All you accomplished was to kick the man out of a family receiving welfare.

Cleveland voted down a school levy even though they spent a couple hundred million on a new football stadium and the schools are in disrepair. Why? Because everyone knows the kids won't do the work. They run wild in the halls in some schools.

Ignorance is bliss and you're full of it.

Good grief. To digress from the mutterings above. Back to Frank's skull comment. ROLF.

Have you noticed how bfugly the Dem's really are... Pulllleeeze. A couple examples.

Henry "nostrils" Waxman

Jerome "jabba" Nadler

Barbara "get a hairdresser" Boxer

Good Grief

That wasn't Nancy Pelosi, it was Balok from Star Trek... Check it out... http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68666.html

Good speech. Didn't watch the Dem rebuttal, but this morning I caught clips of Reid calling things "immoral" that had nothing to do with morality, and from LGF I gather Reid & Pelosi mentioned the word "values" a lot.

When are they going to learn not to govern by Gallup and Zogby? "The people love sincerity. So once we can convincingly fake sincerity, we can get everything we want!"

Not to be crude BUT with Pelosi's stretched face I have to wonder if everytime she smiles her sphincter rides up two inches?

Did someone from the EU slip in here to give us all a lecture on our national debt? Or was it just a Chirac-like American leftie to tell us more of the money I earn rightfully should be in the governments hands? That is so Chirac!!

You have an HDTV? I hate you.

Now now McWert, Joel is absolutely correct.

The whole problem is the tax cuts. We need rich people to pay their fair share, and not burden the poor.

We also need to curb illegal immigration, but we shouldn't hurt those poor people who simply want to make a better life for themselves.

The way we solve both of these problems at the same time? Eliminate income tax (repeal 16th Amendment), replace it with a flat sales tax on all goods and services except food, and eliminate welfare for the able-bodied.

The rich will pay much more tax, considering that they buy more things and the things they buy are more expensive.

The poor will pay much less tax, since they won't be paying tax on their food and they don't buy hardly any luxury items.

The illegal immigrants won't have an incentive to freeload here, since the welfare will be gone. Also, unlike today, they will be paying into the tax system by simply purchasing goods.

Average Americans will have the burden of income taxes lifted off of their backs. No longer will they need to spend time, effort, and money to wind their way through complicated forms and provisions and shelters and charts and tables every April. No longer will they need to spend time collecting every receipt and jumping through a silly myriad of hoops just to keep a little money. Their savings won't be taxed either; they can put more money into college funds and retirement funds, and maybe even plow some back into the economy with stock market investments.

Business, large and small, will no longer need legions of accountants and lawyers to manage payroll taxes in addition to all of the other sales taxes. It will be consolidated and simplified. They will maximize their profits, enabling them to keep their base prices low and keep the economy steaming along at a steady and rapid pace.

Finally, the federal government will be able to trim the IRS down to a tiny fraction of its present size. That will free up loads of money. Couple that with the huge reduction of wealth redistribution from eliminating welfare (which alone is over 50% of the government's expenditures), and the national debt will evaporate in less than a decade.

Isn't that right, Joel?

...Nancy Pelosi, wasn't she in "Pirates of the Caribbean"?

"Feb 3", you anonymous poster you...You don't even know your own name, so of course you don't realize--you are a Communist, Stalinist, Marxist (and don't forget Socialist!) When people like you say "free" anything, it means "from the taxpayers, or I steal it some other way!" When one falls off the highwire of life, they're supposed to roll off the safety net, climb back up the pole and continue the act---not just lay there. There are those who truly can't take care of themselves, and society should watch over them--but for the rest, I like the saying, "work, or die."
Oh, I also like this one: "If you are going to be a scumbag and raise children who act like animals, then we will take them away from you and put them someplace where they will be civilized."

There is good news. After one more facelift, Nancy Pelosi's ears will have met, and she won't be able to get any more facelifts. Then she'll have to go back to being ugly in a more normal way.

One more face lift and Nancy Pelosi will be sporting a goatee.

I gotta point out that there are, and have always been al-Qaeda in Iraq. There WAS a link between Saddam and an associate of UBL's, and I think this is like day 873 of the New York Times refusing to report it.

Saddam DID have WMD's; he used them. He also had several items needed to make nuclear weapons. The UN report doesn't say there are absolutely no WMD's, just that they can't find them.

Let the rich pay their fair share? About 73% of the taxes paid in the U.S are paid by the top earning 10%. You don't think that's enough?

And democrats, for all their "just a tax cut for the rich" are even worse than Republicans. Last year, John Kerry paid 13% income tax. Guess his account found all the loopholes.

Deficits happen. Especially when you start giving Americans their hard earned money back.

Anyway, I didn't see Nancy. Well I just saw her walking behind the President; never saw her speak. Perhaps I am blessed.

Sue Dohnim, you make some interesting suggestions. You suggest that we eliminate welfare for the able-bodied. There are a number of federal and state programs that are sometimes thought of as "welfare," but when people spoke of welfare, they generally meant Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which was abolished in the 1996 Clinton wefare reform.

AFDC was replaced on July 1, 1997 by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). When people speak of welfare, as in "The family next door is on welfare," they mean TANF.

TANF expenditures are about 4%, not 50%, of the federal budget.

Among TANF's provisions are a lifetime cap of five years' assistance. So, if there ever were people who lived on welfare (mythical "welfare queens") they are gone now, by law, thanks to the Clinton welfare reform.

Another of TANF's provisions is that non-citizens, whether here legally or not, don't get any benefits. Poor people from other countries do not come to the United States to go on welfare. Illegal immigrants come to the United States hoping to get minimum-wage jobs picking strawberries, making beds in hotels, or washing dishes in restaurants. (I do not support illegal immigration. I'm putting this simply to correct your erroneous belief that immigrants are attracted by American welfare.)

Even Republicans in Congress recognize that families that work hard and play by the rules sometimes have a run of bad luck, and it's a good idea that their children's lives should be stable, that the family should have some assistance while they seek employment, so the kids have food, clothing and shelter, and stay in school. That is why we have TANF, and why the program enjoys bipartisan support.

The term "payroll taxes" refers only to Social Security and Medicare taxes, not to income taxes.

Replacing income taxes with some kind of sales tax or value-added tax is an interesting idea, but I don't think that saving companies money on compliance lawyers and accountants would be a major benefit. Compliance with federal income tax withholding procedures is a small part of the administrative costs of running a company.

The IRS is also not a large cost of governing. Much much less than 1% of federal income taxes are spent administering the federal income tax. And, with a national sales tax or value added tax, there would still be forms to fill out, and there would still be the need for a compliance unit within the federal government, so that honest people who pay their taxes would know that everyone else is also paying their share. I'm not convinced that the compliance unit for a national sales tax or value added tax would be substantially smaller than the IRS.

Jen,

Even George W. Bush's State Department has acknowledged that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to September 11, 2001.

You acknowledge that the UN said that the WMDs could not be found, yet somehow you know more than the UN inspectors. You are amazing. Please apply for a job with the CIA. Whatever items Saddam did possess, the actual nuclear product (enriched uranium) was not one of them.

In 2000, The most affluent 20% of Americans received 47.4% of U.S. income; the bottom 20% received 4.3% of U.S. income.

Your claim that "About 73% of the taxes paid in the U.S are paid by the top earning 10%" is incorrect. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2000, the top 10% paid 48.5% of federal taxes. Their share of state and local taxes would be even lower. Given their large share of national income, 48.5% is fair and reasonable.

Um, there is no such thing as "national income" (other than tariffs), just lots of individual income earners. So to say that "The Rich" received blah blah blah percent of "national income" is the height of idiocy. But it lets us all know where you stand.

"My fellow Americans, you aren't actually working to generate income, you are working to receive your allowance, expressed as a percentage of the national income, as decided by the Federal Department of Acceptable Wages."

Payroll taxes are separated from income taxes because they are membership fees for your acceptance into the Medicare and Social Security Club.

Asshat.

So basically, what you're saying is, we shouldn't bother to cut spending anywhere because each little line item is such a small percentage of the total?

That's a hell of a standard. With that standard, you can justify any amount of spending, since each individual item will become a decreasing amount of the total.

That's how college students end up racking up huge credit card bills. A little bit here, a little bit there.

"Oh sure, I didn't need that Playstation game, but it only cost less than 1% of all the money I owe."

You've got to start somewhere.

Jason, I believe your comment "So basically, what you're saying is, we shouldn't bother to cut spending anywhere because each little line item is such a small percentage of the total?" was in response to comments on specific programs being small parts of federal spending.

I am NOT saying that small programs should be exempt from scrutiny. I agree with you, small and large programs alike should be scrutinized to see if they are effective and worthwhile. But this is not the point I was making.

The point I was making was that, if the goal is to reduce the deficit, it won't be possible to accomplish much by cutting small programs, because there just isn't that much there to save. It's like, of course the garbage should be emptied from airplane before taking off, but removing 100 pounds of garbage won't help much for a plane with a takeoff weight of 200 tons.

Welfare plus foreign aid together amount to just 5% of federal spending -- well below $100 billion annually. In the context of a non-Social Security deficit of almost $600 billion, we're obviously not going to be able to balance the budget by trimming or even eliminating these two programs. That's why we need to roll back the unaffordable Republican tax cuts.

Did you all grow up in a barn? Do you really believe that personal appearance is the way to judge national leaders, or anyone else? Shouldn't we evaluate the proposals of President Bush, or Reps. Pelosi, Waxman and Nadler, on the merits, and not on what we think of their physical beauty?

We can take a lesson from our legislators, who refer to each other, even from the opposite party, in terms like "My true friend and distinguished colleague, the senior senator from (state)." Trust me, honey works better than vinegar.

I find the tax cuts very affordable, myself.

But I digress.

I think there are alternatives to raising taxes. Simplification of the tax code and eliminating most deductions and loopholes would increase revenue. You could probably lower taxes even further and still increase revenue.

And there are areas where large amounts of money can be cut from the federal budget. Getting the federal government completely out of the education business would be a good start.

Aside from all that though, spending will never be cut unless there is an incentive to do it, and they'll be no incentive if taxes are always raised to cover deficits. Also, lower taxes can lead to higher revenues under certain circumstances.

And finally, to paraphrase Walter Williams, "The ten commandments said 'Thou shalt not steal' not 'Thou shalt not steal unless sanctioned by a majority vote in Congress'" or more simply, as the Kottonmouth Kings once said, "Taxes are stealing".

Jason,

I agree with you that "simplification of the tax code and eliminating most deductions and loopholes would increase revenue." But, what is your tax simplification plan? One of the largest "loopholes" is the deduction for mortgage interest payments. But this "loophole" benefits millions of families, and it has been very difficult to get consideration of closing this "loophole." So the question remains: What is your plan for closing loopholes, and what programs would you cut, and by how much, to close the non-Social Security deficit of almost $600 million, without rolling back the unaffordable Republican tax cuts, which will force our children and grandchildren to pay what we should be paying ourselves now.

Real conservatives believe in balancing a budget, not making our children and grandchildren pay.

Sorry, I meant almost $600 billion, not almost $600 million.

("A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." -Senator Everett Dirksen (R-TN))

So, Mr. I'm too scared to give my name, you're saying that not ONE member of al-Qaeda was EVER in Iraq prior to 9/11? Give me a break. I'd tell you my CIA status, but that's classified.

I don't recall ever saying I knew more than the UN inspectors, though I'm not sure such a comment would be unwarranted. Let me repeat myself here: I said that they never said "Saddam never had weapons!" The report concluded that they did not find any weapons. How do we know they were even looking? How do we know that they didn't clock in and then fly to France to have cheese with Chirac? We don't. Well, I haven't personally seen sufficient proof.

You got me on the tax thing, I just checked those figures and they're a bit old. I admit that.

Joel: I prefer not to think of it as a barn, more of a backyard oasis. BTW, this is a humor site. We all have this thing called a sense of humor. I personally couldn't care what politicians look like, I care about their policies. If Ted Kennedy were a Republican, I would not make fun of his obvious state of continuous drunkeness. If Nancy Pelosi were not a loony liberal, I would probably choose to compliment her....interesting bone structure. It's all in fun.

"Real conservatives believe in balancing a budget, not making our children and grandchildren pay."

Yes, that's why I became a conservative, to balance budgets. I enjoy it. It's fun for me.

Actually, I thought "real conservatives" believed in limited government, not raising taxes to pay for unconstitutional expenditures. But hey, I'm old school. But I assume you're not a conservative anyway, because a conservative would never say "unaffordable tax cuts". Tax cuts are neither affordable nor unaffordable. What taxes are spent on is either affordable or unaffordable. Tax cuts aren't a government spending program. Our current government is unaffordable.

Look, I'm not going to brainstorm all the areas where I think cuts could be made. All I know is that I work in education, and the amount of money that gets tossed around in grants and whatnot is just staggering. A million here, a million there. No big deal. People getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to research uncontroversial topics that few people even care about. Many inner city schools are top heavy with highly paid administrators, but then lay-off teachers when there's a budget crunch. I could go on, but I won't.

I highly doubt education is the only area where money is wasted like this.

I just find your attitude about government spending defeatist. We can't fight it, we might as well just get out the checkbooks. Sorry that doesn't work for me.

Jason: You say you're not willing to brainstorm. What you're really saying is, in effect, "Don't bother me with the details. I'd cut education, I'd cut here and there, and I'd balance the budget." Sorry, we live in a real world with real money and real accounts. The Department of Education's budget is $57 billion. How much of that do you want to cut? What else do you want to cut? It's easy to "wave your hands" and speak of waste here, fat there, and abuse over behind that tree. So far, you've identified one $57 billion program, but you haven't shown how you can even come close to balancing the budget, even if you zeroed out the Department of Education.

And, of course, if you did cut federal education spending, that would leave the states to make up the difference. States would have to raise state taxes, or cut state programs. What state programs would you cut in your state, or what state taxes would you raise in your state, to make up for the loss in federal support for education? In order for you to make a serious proposal, it has to add up. For example, if you propose to cut the Department of Education by $10 billion and your state gets 2% of that, how would you close the $200 million new hole in your state's budget?

What federal program is unconstitutional? If it is unconstitutional, why hasn't anyone challenged such program in the U.S. Supreme Court? What has the Supreme Court ruled to such cases?

Taxes are the price we pay for the privilege of living in a free society, with national defense, roads, police, and teaching our children about George Washington and preparing them for the jobs of the twenty-first century.

I'm not defeatist. I am realistic.

Joel,
For one, line item veto. Vut out the pork. Every bill, every program, has hidden dollars. Washington DC makes Enron look like finding a Canadian nickel in your pocket when standing at the vending machine.

Joel,

I think any reduction in taxes is a good idea. It takes a single step to begin a long journey. It certainly has taken many years to get to the bloated budget that we have now. Reduce the government's income, and let them figure out where to make the cuts. That's what I have to do every year, both in my personal finances and at work.

Maybe the government should be required to submit to zero based budgeting every year. I'm sure that there are hundreds of well intentioned programs that have outlived their intention.

Your assumptions about the state having to raise revenue to make up for the loss of federal dollars is flawed. You are assuming that the states already have cost efficient (and effective) budgets.

I agree with your statement about paying for defense, roads, education. But that's all that we should be paying for. Anything else that isn't for the common good is by definition for the individual good (ie wealth redistribution).

It is really amazing to read the comments people are posting here. I repeatedly ask "what would you cut" in order to balance the budget, and nobody can identify what they would cut to balance the budget. Jason said "Getting the federal government completely out of the education business would be a good start." Most of the Department of Education's $57 billion budget goes to the states. Don blithely says that the states can afford to take that hit. That's a heroic assumption. Most if not all states are having major budgetary problems. The fat has all been cut, and now states are cutting essential programs. This is true whether the governor is a Democrat or a Republican. Ask your state senator what programs he or she would cut if the state suddenly stopped receiving its share of the $57 billion education budget. Very likely, it would be programs that you do care about. But at least, you should ask that question before you declare, willy-nilly, "Oh, just cut education, no problem."

Don asserts a neat, easy divide between common good and individual good. But life is not so simple. How about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Is that "common good" or "individual good"? Well, diseases are communicable. We've basically wiped out polio in the United States, thanks to the Center for Disease Control -- and now almost world-wide, too. Sounds like common good. How about rural highways? Why should urban dwellers subsidize people who live in remote areas? Yes, but how are farm products supposed to get to the city, and how are city dwellers supposed to visit the wilderness? Common good or individual good? How about urban mass transit? Why should rural people subsidize urban dwellers? Yes, but urban mass transit reduces air pollution and dependence on
foreign oil. Plus, by reducing traffic, it speeds up traffic for those who drive. Common good or individual good? For almost any government expenditure, if you want to, you could construct an argument that the expenditure is needed for the common good, and you could construct an argument the benefit goes only to a group of individuals

Consider this: In 2004, Florida was hit by three hurricanes. President George Bush rushed a great deal of federal emergency aid to Florida. This pleased Floridians greatly, and this may have moved Florida from the Kerry column to the Bush column (and thereby put Bush over the top in the Electoral College). But there is a very strong and reasonable argument that people in Florida know the risks and should not be bailed out by the federal government, and that Bush's emergency aid to Florida benefited many individual Floridians, but not the common good of the nation as a whole, which should not subsidize people who "foolishly" live in locations subject to hurricanes. I can argue it either way, and so can you. Same with most federal programs.

Line-item veto? Just cut the pork? Zero-based budgeting? Those are dodges, not answers, to the question, "what would you cut to make a major dent in the nearly $600 billion non-Social Security deficit." So far, nobody has answered this question. I stand by my conclusion that the Republican tax cuts must be rolled back, in order to balance the budget.

Members of country clubs and other organizations have to pay dues. Dues are what you pay for the privilege of enjoying the benefits of an organization. I am thrilled to live in the United States. It's a great country. And I enjoy the benefits. And I'm proud to pay my dues. I pay my dues -- my taxes -- proudly and without hesitation or remorse. This is what I pay to live in a civilized society.

Joel,

I don't recall Florida ever being in the "Kerry Column". Is the memory of a blue Florida "seared, seared" into your head?

Nip-n-tuck: The only poll that counts is the one on election day. But, opinion polls in Florida in 2004 showed a very close presidential race, with Kerry sometimes in the lead. Bush's support in Florida increased after he pushed federal emergency aid to Florida after the hurricanes. It is possible that this tipped the election, but "History does not reveal its options."

Joel, you are a liberal weeny windbag and you are not funny. Thanks for not competing with war and peace on your last post.

Sue D. is right. read her post again and be done with this.