(CNSNews.com) – When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave her inaugural address as speaker of the House in 2007, she vowed there would be “no new deficit spending.” Since that day, the national debt has increased by $5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” Pelosi said in her speech from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
Pelosi has served as speaker in the 110th and 111th Congresses.
At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).
Pelosi, the 60th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has added more to the national debt than the first 57 House speakers combined.
Words do have meaning… to some of us.
Pelosi is a lying witch. It’s as simple as that. And yes she’s done a LOT of idiotic things.
Yeah, but that was before the Bush economic meltdown in late 2008.
Oh, and President Obama is free to send troops to Iraq if they declare war on the US.
#18
“Did you hear her at :26 she says “Our NEW AMERICA” I didn’t want a new America, I like the one the founding father made.”
Well you are late by about 130 years.
1. Build time machine
2. Set to 1840
3. Bust time machine
4. Profit
You will never see THAT USA again.
Cursor_
#19–Thomas==whats that level of mental deficiency one step above imbecile? Is it idiot or moron? I do want to give you your credit due.
Yes, the defective building blocks used to build a defective grand theory. Much more clear to go after the bricks than the building.
Still, can’t be too negative as “who knows?” but that is a well beaten horse, but how can I soar like an eagle when I’m surrounded by turkeys?
There is synergy in working “together”, but only a downward spiral race to the bottom when the motto is: “I’ve got mine, screw you.”
Poor Thomas.
#24
The problem here is that you have a fundamental ignorance with respect to microeconomics. Specifically, you do not fundamentally understand how firms and individuals make decisions in the face of scarcity. So, instead, your solution is resort to ad hominems when you have no basis for a retort.
In order to work together both parties have to be grounded. If one wants to go off and fly like an eagle, it does nothing towards the goal of finding solutions. Having an apathetic, site-around-the-campfire-singing-kumbayah, “it’ll all work out on its own cause I’m too ignorant and too unmotivated to find out on my own” is frankly a worse motto. Doubly worse if you vote with that attitude.
We shouldn’t have been running deficits in 2007. We should be running them in 2010. This is conservative economics which, these days, only the Democrats seem to believe in.
Conservative economics say you are supposed to run surpluses when the economy is up so that you CAN run deficits when the economy is down.
But REPUBLICAN economics say that you run INSANE deficits when the conservatives are in power and then CRY LIKE BABIES about spending when the Democrats are in power. This is insane.
BTW, any of you aware that deficits are down this year? Did Fox or even the supposed “liberal” media tell you that?
http://tinyurl.com/2fgzdds
Why? Because the stimulus package worked and increased revenue – just as it is supposed to under (real) conservative economics.
Yep. When you take a loan from China to pay off your unimaginable debt, you get temporary stability. That is, until the bill arrives. Good job idiots. You’ve sold us out to China by the trillions.
#26. “Why? Because the stimulus package worked and increased revenue – just as it is supposed to under (real) conservative economics.”
ROTFLMAO….because words just fail me at the moment. Man I have seen you post some stupid shit……but the award goes to you. I can’t take it anymore.
Government didn’t recover our economy. Private businesses made huge sacrifices to rebuild our economy. The only recovery the stimulus assisted in was the recovery of bloated government from going bankrupt. We basically took out another loan because we couldn’t pay our current one. Idiots.
“Democracy in Deficit” by James M. Buchanan is a must read if you want to learn about why Western nations have been spent themselves into the ground during the past 70 years.
#12, bobbo, disappointed in you…
Do they think rich people create jobs with their windfall profits
Please define a “windfall” profit as it relates to “rich” people, why you think it is bad, and how your attack is relevant. Investment is an extremely important component of economic growth as it allows for accumulation of new capital and replacement of depreciated capital. It also funds technological innovation. Savings are the primary source of investment funds, and the rich are the largest source of savings.
Do they think cutting taxes always results in additional income?
Additional income to whom? The government? All a tax does is transfer wealth from one group to another group. The outcome can only be considered neutral since you have to take away from somebody to give to another. You have no way of determining what the opportunity cost of that transfer is because you can’t measure the value of what it would have been used for otherwise.
Do they think that minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available?
The minimum wage has many effects that have been shown through empirical study. First, it does decrease the number of entry-level jobs available to unskilled, mostly young workers. This doesn’t necessarily happen in the short-run, but is much more pronounced in the long-run, because small businesses who pay these minimum salaries are oftentimes not able to afford the higher labor costs and are driven out of the market, resulting in a net loss of those jobs. Of course, large chains love the minimum wage for that exact reason because it reduces competition . The minimum wage also decreases the cost to employers of discrimination, and so minority workers are often injured by the minimum wage.
Do they think that providing tax credits to move jobs offshore helps establish free trade?
Tax credits are a transfer, and are generally inefficient because they hide the true costs of production and so lead to market failure. They also create opportunities for political corruption through rent seeking activities.
Do they think children should be given the freedom to work for free/reduced wages/experience as interns?
They already enjoy that luxury, if they work on a farm.
#26
We shouldn’t have been running deficits in 2007. We should be running them in 2010. This is conservative economics which, these days, only the Democrats seem to believe in.
First, this is not “conservative” economics; this is Keynesian economics which is generally endorsed by people that consider themselves liberal. It is not difficult to understand why. Any philosophy that endorses heavy spending to “save” the economy during a recession is going to be endorsed by anyone that is also a proponent of big government.
Second, the theory itself has (at least one) a fundamental flaw. For Keynes theory to work, during propserous times, Congress, a body rarely known to restrain spending, has to, of its own volition, focus its attention on reducing the debt. Said another way, during times when tax revenue is at its highest, Congress has to not spend it. Even if for a moment, we entertain the idea that Keynes’ theory works adademically (which I do not accept), in practice it relies upon motivations that are in direct contrast to human nature.
Why? Because the stimulus package worked and increased revenue – just as it is supposed to under (real) conservative economics.
You don’t get it. No one disputes that tax revenue will go up with government spending. The question is whether it harms the economy more than it hurts. Since the multipliers of government spending are all below one, it means that for every dollar they spend, they take more out of the economy than put into it. I.e. robbing Peter to pay Paul. Then there is the fact that we still have 10-20%+ unemployment…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704751304575079260144504040.html
Thomas,
You brought up Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman has been demonstrated to be completely, and foolishly wrong. The idea that markets regulate themselves via consumer pressure on providers is silly.
After how many accounting scandals do you conclude that businesses are not immune the the same pressures that make thieves of individuals?
Second, our government has been stimulating the economy for decades, and it has been working just fine. Fly on a plane, use a computer, or get an advanced medical procedure? Government money behind that.
You just need to deal with taxes. They suck, but how are you special enough not to pay?
Thomas–I apologize. You are not a low level thinker. You just espouse the same policies they do. Why you think the way you do is a mystery to me, probably something in your childhood or even later developmental years. Yes: “I’ve got mine, screw you.” Hard to really criticize you when about 50% of the voting public has the same attitude. And thats why the spiral goes down. Smart, but too self centered to see the value in having a healthy broad middle class. Make money the object of worship rather than skill, expertise, and accomplishment. I think Heinlein wrote several Sci-Fi books that dealt with “banking.” Seems to be on the order of dealing with Atomic Energy as to whether or not a society will prosper and thrive or be done asunder.
Sea Lawyer–I looked with interest on what your criticisms might be. You just copied Thomas. Another bad upbringing? I’d go into detail/repetition. My guiding light would be “what actually works?” To bad even with all our history and theories, there is no scientific consensus. Makes Global Warming look easy.
The joy of wisdom is coming to want the best for your fellow man-or at least their kiddies. It takes practice and certainly doesn’t include being snarly on a blog. We all have our faults.
Bobbo says: 50% of the voting public has the attitude:
“I’ve got mine, screw you.”
And the other 50% has the attitude:
“You got yours, and I want it”
if they believe any of the stuff spewed by bobbo, they are definitely morons
Pelosi is a mess. So is the country. Since the post is economic in nature, I think the following words are pertinent:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/222206
Pelosi is a mess. So is the country. Since the post is economic in nature, I think the following words are pertinent:
http://rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/222206
#33
Friedman would be the first to say that our current markets are not actually free. Further, the vast majority of notable economists in the past 30 years are all monetarists. Both Bernanke and Greenspan are monetarists.
Fly on a plane, use a computer, or get an advanced medical procedure? Government money behind that.
Airlines, computer manufacturers and medical equipment makers are all private enterprises. I’m not say that government money for research is necessary bad. However, government money for the express intent of stimulating the economy is an abject failure and has been in every case when it has been tried. Proof of the current stimulus: 20% unemployment in some places and a (conservatively estimated) 13 trillion dollar debt.
Government stimulus can only work if amount of money it puts into the economy is more than the amount of money it takes out of the economy through taxation. That’s the multiplier. If it’s less than one, as it is for the stimulus package, then the government hurts the economy more than helps it through government expenditure. Again, remember that all that stimulus money that was pissed away has to be repaid at some point with interest.
You just need to deal with taxes. They suck, but how are you special enough not to pay?
You seem to love them so why don’t you give 100% of your income to the government? Why keep any of it? No one argues that some level of taxation is necessary. The question as always is “how much”?
#34
At no time did I ever state that I ascribe by the policy of “I’ve got yours screw you.” That is your own misguided interpretation. Furthermore, no economist espouses those sentiments.
Make money the object of worship rather than skill, expertise, and accomplishment.
Again, at no time have I ever said that one should worship money. However, money is clearly a driving force in people’s decisions because it is a necessity resource in order to function is modern society.
I fully ascribe to the idea that people should strive to be the best at whatever it is they wish to be. However, not everyone can make a living doing whatever they want. Just because someone wants to be the best NFL quarterback that ever played doesn’t mean they will even have the skills to even play. Life is not fair that way; get over it. Fundamentally, people’s individual talents and the current market conditions will dictate what people can do. Just because you can craft the finest wagon wheels does not mean you will be able to cover your rent doing it.
You wonder where Sea Laywer and I get our point of view? Economics. The study of economics (microeconomics specifically) is the study of how people make decisions in the face of scarcity. I’m assuming that Sea Laywer has taken more than a few classes on economics because I recognize the manner in which he formulates his responses. Microeconomics gives you clearer perspective on the effects of actions like minimum wages, subsidies and yes even taxes.