Comments on: Pelosi Says Surtax Could go for Deficit Reduction, too?

By: Vannek

Vannek — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:04:09 +0000

Thank you for this brilliant idea.

By: bobojake

bobojake — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:42:32 +0000

We thought you pelosi would be the scariest idiot we can find. Are you available?????????

By: GT350

GT350 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:32:18 +0000

I guess this makes me a Right-Wing Moby.

I called Barbara Lee’s office & congratulated her on the courageous stand for Single-Payer comprehensive healthcare for all. I told her to stick to her guns (figuratively, of course, since she wants to ban firearms) & NO COMPROMISES! Stick it to the Man!

I don’t know what I would do if her version actually becomes law. I would probably shoot myself to take personal responsibility.

By: GT350

GT350 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:15:04 +0000

Apparently, there’s a list of 50 House lefties who won’t support a bill unless it contains a strong public option. They want full, comprehensive, low cost health coverage, w/ minimal or no copay. Full coverage, including mental health, dental, etc etc, for FREE**.

They are completely out of their freakin’ minds. Yet I’m going to call the closest one to me (Barbara Lee / Berkeley) and egg her on. I really want to see a splintering between the Blue Dogs and the no-compromise Ultralefties.

**Free means “paid for by the Rich, who can obviously afford it.”

By: Vannek

Vannek — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:20:03 +0000

… but, the proposed tax is on “income” not wealth. The tax would come from future arnings not from the wealth that trough-feeders like Pelosi and Feinstein have already amassed. They’ll hardly feel the pain from taxes on their Congressional pay.

As for Pelosi being “intellectually incapable of understanding the amount of money we are talking about here,” I don’t think that’s true. She has the ability to understand but is blinded by ideology. I work for a major university where I’m surrounded by people like Pelosi–people who’s economic understanding is limited to reading Paul Krugman’s op eds. For years, they’ve been told that the U.S. has resources and wealth so infinite that we could turn the entire world into a paradise if we weren’t so greedy. Let me correct that last statement: “… if OTHER PEOPLE weren’t so greedy.” These folks never want their personal wealth or self-interest put into play. They’ve been brainwashed into thinking that the Bill Gates’s of the world should and must pay the price. Magical thinking.

By: djemi

djemi — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:12:57 +0000

Unless it was a "side job" but I'm not going there. Question: Is this 544 Billion based on current GDP growth numbers? I only ask as "it would not be surprising if GDP has not yet reached its low" at least according to Larry Summers And this is in addition to the payroll fine you point out here As a side not and I hate to send poeple here but, Ha Ha Ha

By: Darin_H

Darin_H — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:50:37 +0000

She’s just trying to keep up with Teh One, last year he promised revenue neutral tax policy (higher on rich with a middle class cut) along with deficit reduction while spending more.

By: itdiehard

itdiehard — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:21:31 +0000

to avoid the tax man?

By: johnt

johnt — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:12:25 +0000

but who is going to call her on it? Besides us that is. If the msm trained it’s guns on this fool she would be laughed into a dark cellar somewhere. A basic rule; there are no stupid democrats/liberals, the sole guide to real intelligence being one’s devotion to grotesquely huge, devouring, destroying government.
Believe in that and you qualify as an intellectual, you may even read a book or two a year.

Being a highly qualified liar, that’s why she is Speaker, someone may have patiently explained to this ape the true costs and the absurdity of deficit reduction as is. No matter, unchallenged the dolt plunges on.