Story: "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.
...
Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority,"
...To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."
"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added"
The similarities to the communist rhetoric is astounding. But it is the modern liberal party.
So, they support the market place, but wish to raise the minimum wage, meaning more people won't be able to have a job.
Tax the succesful and those who pay for those jobs, because somehow, taxing them makes me feel better.
Kill more children with scientific reaserch, because you know, thats one of the winning issues in this election cycle.
Raise medicare and lower the interest rate on loans... More spending.
Enact the recomendations of the flawed Sept. 11 commision... If Nancy Pelosi wants to do that, it should tell us the quality of their opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
How does Pelosi plan on killing children? I failed to see that in her plan. The one thing I would like to see in her statement is an actual income tax INCREASE for those making $150,000 or more annually. Why is it that the wealthy receive rollbacks on taxes while the working class receive increases in their tax burden? The whole idea, too, that if the wealthy are paying less in taxes that they will spend more in borderline insane. They are no more likely to frivolously spend than anyone else and have the wherewithall to mask spending with circumventing of tax laws.
Brian, I think Pelosi would be killing children with her stem cell research. If it includes embryos, it's killing.
I'm not positive, but I don't think the working classe's taxes increased while the rich's went down. Plus, if you're making the money, even if you're rich, why should someone be allowed to take away 40 plus percent? No one should have to pay that much in taxes, even if they are rich!
Tax the succesful and those who pay for those jobs, because somehow, taxing them makes me feel better.
we are running a war without the funds to support it. Your President took an inherited surplus and dug this nation into the deepest deficit its ever faced. you need to raise the money from somewhere. Who would you prefer we tax, exactly?
Kill more children with scientific reaserch, because you know, thats one of the winning issues in this election cycle. embryonic stem cell research is HARDLY the same as killing a child. That's absolutely patently absurd. I don't seem people running out to get impregnated with these frozen, unwanted embryos. In fact, those that go unused get disposed of. Is that a BETTER option than medical advancements to find cures for disease?
I hope you watch a parent or grandparent struggle with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's some day...so you can take some pleasure in the fact you DON'T support the medical field's attempts THROUGH STEM CELL RESEARCH to find cures for those diseases. I'm sure your relatives will be so proud.
Brian:
Pelosi supports both Embryomic Stem Cell reaserch, and Abortion, both of which kill children.
Why do you support a tax increase?
The wealthy recieved a tax cut, and deserve another, because the top 10% pay 65.84% of taxes.
The wealthy may spend their money, but why is this a problem? It's theirs to spend, and they should be able to choose where, and how, to spend the money on.
Lydia:
I agree, and your correct on both counts.
Mg:
Perhaps you are blithely ignorant of history. When taxes are cut, both in the 80s and this time, the revenue into the Federal Treasury increases. Why? Because more economic freedom means more prospertiy to tax, and brings in more revenue. When taxes are raised, revenue falls. Soviet Union is a prime example of this.
I support the flat tax, where each person pays the same amount, proportionally, as the next guy over.
Killing a human embryo that will develop into a human baby, that is murduer. The same reaserch can occour with the unbimical cords, which don't kill to use.
I'm glad you wish my relatives to come down with alzheimers...
This President is bankrupting our country. Trickle-down economics didn't work during the Reagan administration and it doesn't work now. Its not a coincidence that this nation experienced its highest prosperity during the 2nd Clinton administration.
Would you rather that the "frozen embryos" just get thrown out? because that is what fertility clinics do with them now. Just throw them away. that's a form of killing too isn't it?
when a man and woman choose to use artificial insemmination, they often take multiple eggs and sperm and try to fertilize as many embryos as they can. then, they implant one into the woman's uterus. then, the other "unused" fertilized embryos are thrown away. WHY do you disagree with using them for medical studies?
why do you hate scientific advancement?
"Its not a coincidence that this nation experienced its highest prosperity during the 2nd Clinton administration."
Wait... Didn't we have a republican house for the first time in 40 years during that term? No, no connection at all...
Oh. And that the NASDAQ bubble was ready to burst in the second half of 2000, before Bush took office, and while Clinton was in office?
Nope, no coniencedence.
There was no way the tax cuts of the 80s still had an effect.
If they're frozen now, they can continue to be frozen, until it is possible to raise them to full maturity and offer them for adoption.
Mg, I don't hate scientific advacement. Just the kind that directly kills human beings in the process. I love NASA, and believe we should increase the funding for it.
If they're frozen now, they can continue to be frozen, until it is possible to raise them to full maturity and offer them for adoption.
No - you see, that is the whole point - they will NEVER be adopted or raised to maturity because the parents who fertilized the eggs DON'T want them. A couple who uses artificial insemination doesn't want 20 kids...they want one, or two, or three. But to make sure they get an embryo, the doctors always fertilize more than necessary. BUT those embryos can't be adopted by other peopley and used....they are the biological product of the two parents who sought the procedure.
Those parents don't want other biological children being implanted into other women and raised by other families.
The eggs get thrown away when the parents give the doctors the ok to get rid of them. The eggs belong to the parents, and they are not "adoptable" nor can the doctors keep them frozen. They are simply disposed of.
So HOW exactly is that better than being used for medical research? Explain that to me.
Im,all in favor of stem cell research,so long as its adult stem cells which are a whole lot more effective in the medical realm than embrionic stem cell reasearch has ever proven to be.As for Polosi,she should stic to punching cops,thats what shes best at.
oops,my mistake it was another representive,not Pelosi that punched the cop.
We are 9 trillion in Debt. When Clinton raised the tax rates 3%, it balanced the budget and left us with a surplus. Now we have tax cuts for the rich and out of control spending.
Will Cheney and Bill Gates miss their 2nd yacht because the gov takes another 3-5 % ? But the average joe sure will miss it. In the 60's, the top tax brackets were 70 and 90%. The rich survived then, and they could survive if we taxed the top brackets enough to balance the books. And yes, we should cut spending where it can be cut. Let's start with the War that was started on a lie, for oil, by 2 oil men in a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, had no WMD's, and had nothing to do with Al Queda or 9/11.
And for the blogger who said that the 9/11 commission was "flawed", if they were so wrong, how do you rate this president and his team of clowns? They have screwed the pooch on everything that they have touched. Expcept of course in the dept. of giving corporations and the wealthy everything that they paid for. And guess who is paying for that at $3-$3.50 a gallon and in the cost of prescriptions to everything else that they have sold us down the river on. Wait until you see your heating bills this winter. Then let's see how long that Bush bumper sticker stays on your SUV.
Post a Comment