Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pelosi calls deficit commission leaders' proposal 'unacceptable'

By Emi Kolawole

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has released the following statement regarding the proposal put forth by the leaders of the president's deficit commission that calls for cutting back Social Security benefits and wiping out over $100 billion a year in tax breaks for individuals and businesses, among other spending cuts:

Our nation is facing two challenges: the need to create jobs and address our budget deficit. Any viable proposal from the President's Fiscal Commission must strengthen our economy, but it must do so in a fair way, focusing on how we can effectively promote economic growth.

This proposal is simply unacceptable. Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors, who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare. And it must strengthen America's middle class families -- under siege for the last decade, and unable to withstand further encroachment on their economic security.

By Emi Kolawole  | November 10, 2010; 5:13 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency, Capitol Briefing  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: John Boehner says he'll fly commercial as speaker
Next: Letter from President Obama to G-20 leaders

Comments

Someone needs to take Fancy Nancy in a nice padded room and explain to her that she lost her kingdom. She is no longer queen! She -- and her ilk -- cause a lot of the mess we face, and confidence has been LOST IN HER, and her credibility is sinking daily.

Pull a popularity poll and explain to her that "LOW POLL NUMBERS ARE BAD, BAD, BAD, and that she has LOW POLL NUMBERS!"

Who cares what that socialist says???

Posted by: wheeljc | November 16, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Beast had it right, Pelosi undercuts any attempt to rein in government spending and then has the stupidity to say the following "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security" How do you do right for our children and grandchildren if you don't cut spending. The commission was trying to look to the fiscal future of the country. Pelosi does not have a clue about anything. A total idiot.

Posted by: hankgolfer | November 13, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Beast had it right, Pelosi undercuts any attempt to rein in government spending and then has the stupidity to say the following "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security" How do you do right for our children and grandchildren if you don't cut spending. The commission was trying to look to the fiscal future of the country. Pelosi does not have a clue about anything. A total idiot.

Posted by: hankgolfer | November 13, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Beast had it right, Pelosi undercuts any attempt to rein in government spending and then has the stupidity to say the following "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security" How do you do right for our children and grandchildren if you don't cut spending. The commission was trying to look to the fiscal future of the country. Pelosi does not have a clue about anything. A total idiot.

Posted by: hankgolfer | November 13, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Beast had it right, Pelosi undercuts any attempt to rein in government spending and then has the stupidity to say the following "Any final proposal from the Commission should do what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security" How do you do right for our children and grandchildren if you don't cut spending. The commission was trying to look to the fiscal future of the country. Pelosi does not have a clue about anything. A total idiot.

Posted by: hankgolfer | November 13, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi is one of the few congressmen left with a pair. Hang in there, girl

Posted by: oldwoman | November 12, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments by rheckler appeared to based on facts and, if so, it seems to me there has been a great deal of fear making. Canada's Unemployment Insurance Corp by the Gov't is now stablized whereas the gov't cannot handily transfer those funds out. There was an attempt years ago to reduce the Seniors pensions - and that was stopped. While a gov't can do many things - when the "sacred cows" are threatened people not only stand up an take notice - they march on the Capital. Don't ever underestimate the power of the seniors - as once our Liberal and formerPrime Minister Martin did.
Governments should be smaller not larger and in peoples opinions - take care of our country - not every other country.

Posted by: marlenestobbart | November 12, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Poor Pelosi. Just think...

She has to give up her plush speakers office

She has to fly commercial flights to CA with the common folk

And when she has lunch at MacDonalds with her far-left wack job SF friends there will be no toy in her "Happy Meal"

Life can be so cruel.

Posted by: gman6 | November 12, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Poor Pelosi. Just think...

She has to give up her plush speakers office

She has to fly commercial flights to CA with the common folk

And when she has lunch at MacDonalds with her far-left wack job SF friends there will be no toy in her "Happy Meal"

Life can be so cruel.

Posted by: gman6 | November 12, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

People need to wake up - all sacred cows need to be given up. One group can't fix this problem - it will take everyone making some sacrifices.

The trick is to do it without creating bigger problems. Stop the claim everytime local taxes must be cut the first to go are police and fireman - nonsense.

People are living longer, so to have to work longer (same percentage of years of life is reasonable). It's more difficult to cut benefits. Living longer has an expense - namely you will have to work a little longer.

I'm a hawk on defense, but even the defense budget can be cut. Generals all have pet projects that aren't very cost effective - these need to go. But we can't sacrifice our military preparedness. I seen reports by sophisticated military leaders who have identified large dollars that could be saved.

The government needs to cut people - sorry.

Governor Elect Cuomo in NY said even education needs to be cut. Spending doesn't equate to performance. We need to figure out how to do a better job - not just throw money at it. Teacher union goes crazy with this suggestion - because it might mean less teachers and less of paycheck.

We could go on for hours - the point is everyone needs to contribute. If not when we go bankrupt or inflation goes crazy will pay anyway. If the system collapses the situation will be worse than any process that is created by knowledgeable people.

Posted by: Ted17 | November 12, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

It is past time for the elected (Pelosi, Durbin, Boehner, Obama, etc.) begin to understand that they cannot protect any constituency from making a sacrifice to keep the country afloat. You all have changed Republicans and Conservatives into Tea Partiers. You have changed Democrats and Liberals into Independents. I don't know who the elected represent. Clearly the debt commission has mapped a doable course and clearly the political parties have begun the fight to excuse the ones who have paid them from paying for the country.

Posted by: llnstoner | November 12, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

It is past time for the elected (Pelosi, Durbin, Boehner, Obama, etc.) begin to understand that they cannot protect any constituency from making a sacrifice to keep the country afloat. You all have changed Republicans and Conservatives into Tea Partiers. You have changed Democrats and Liberals into Independents. I don't know who the elected represent. Clearly the debt commission has mapped a doable course and clearly the political parties have begun the fight to excuse the ones who have paid them from paying for the country.

Posted by: llnstoner | November 12, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

It is past time for the elected (Pelosi, Durbin, Boehner, Obama, etc.) begin to understand that they cannot protect any constituency from making a sacrifice to keep the country afloat. You all have changed Republicans and Conservatives into Tea Partiers. You have changed Democrats and Liberals into Independents. I don't know who the elected represent. Clearly the debt commission has mapped a doable course and clearly the political parties have begun the fight to excuse the ones who have paid them from paying for the country.

Posted by: llnstoner | November 12, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.


Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.


Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.


Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs


Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.


Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8

Posted by: rheckler2002 | November 12, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Millions of Americans have lost their retirement funds due to:

* job losses to outsourcing
• the savings and loan scandal during the Reagan/Bush years
• ENRON
• Dot com fraud
• Bernie Maddoff
• Home loan fraud during the Bush/Cheney admin which put an estimated 11 million out of work

In essence we never know from one day to the next if we will be employed. As we all know Wall Street investing offers no guarantees of safety.

The best way to explain Social Security is to say what it is. It's an insurance system that protects your income when you retire or face disability, and provides income to your children if you die.

Politicians want you to look at Social Security as an investment--but it is a form of insurance that guarantees a constant stream of income in retirement or in case of disability adjusted to protect against inflation, for as long as you live.

Posted by: rheckler2002 | November 12, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

How to reduce the cost of healthcare? Get rid of the medical insurance industry!

Why? Because they do not provide health care but they are a whopping expense item!


Improved Medicare Insurance for All would provide real medical insurance reform!

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on
healthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves
over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more
inadequately covered.

Expanded and Improved Medicare for All is the solution.

- Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides
healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The
structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

- Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing
and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies.
Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on
administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

- Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide
personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing
would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you chose
your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

- State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of
healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the
cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and
local tax burdens.

- Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare
services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be
no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include
not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental,
vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

- Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No
longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

- No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would
eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit
before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and
force people into bankruptcy.

- Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare.
Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated
prices for prescription drugs.

Posted by: rheckler2002 | November 12, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

How to reduce the cost of healthcare? Get rid of the medical insurance industry!

Why? Because they do not provide health care but they are a whopping expense item!


Improved Medicare Insurance for All would provide real medical insurance reform!

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on
healthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves
over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more
inadequately covered.

Expanded and Improved Medicare for All is the solution.

- Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides
healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The
structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

- Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing
and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies.
Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on
administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

- Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide
personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing
would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you chose
your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

- State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of
healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the
cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and
local tax burdens.

- Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare
services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be
no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include
not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental,
vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

- Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No
longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

- No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would
eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit
before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and
force people into bankruptcy.

- Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare.
Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated
prices for prescription drugs.

Posted by: rheckler2002 | November 12, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

People in this country need to realize that sacrifices are going to have to be made by all people. Everyone wants the other person to always pay for it. We are all in this together. Way past time to stop being selfish. Hopefully Pelosi will rethink her position.

Posted by: softjazz41 | November 12, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Any better recommendations Ms. Designer suit soon-to-be ex-speaker?

Posted by: pielusztcontractor | November 12, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Fabulous News!! I just printed Coupons for free. You can print coupons before you shop http://bit.ly/cRwn9f

Posted by: faberlacy12 | November 12, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new season approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!
===== http://www.bizboysell.com ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap $9
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
FREE SHIPPING
===== http://www.bizboysell.com ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou371 | November 11, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

So NOW Pelosi is concerned about "what is right for our children and grandchildren's economic security as well as for our nation's fiscal security, and it must do what is right for our seniors"...she should have thought of that before spending $800+ BILLION on ???

Her party has control of the WH and Senate...they were elected to come up with good choices. Why doesn't Obama shut down the wars instead of starting new multi-billion dollar ones in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, close our bases in developed countries that can and should pay for their own defense, and stop all benefits to illegal aliens? That would be a great start.

Posted by: samwoods77 | November 11, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

OK, Nancy, call the commission's proposal unacceptable, but now you're sounding like the party of NO. Just what do you propose to fix this disaster? Throwing a tantrum will do no good. Remember that this is but a proposal. There can be others. There must be others, but it is past time to take decisive action, and yes, it's going to hurt. We've lived in a blindfolded bubble like Nero, literally fiddling while Rome burns. Time to pay for the folly.

Posted by: sober1 | November 11, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Ms Pelosi,

If the ideas presented by the Chairmen of the Deficit Committee are unacceptable then what do you recommend to bring down the debt?

I would hope that you face reality and realize that sacrifices are needed by all to address this problem. That means entitlements and defense spending are required to be included.

For once I call on you to sacrifice for the common good.

Posted by: mwhoke | November 11, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Ms Pelosi,

If the ideas presented by the Chairmen of the Deficit Committee are unacceptable then what do you recommend to bring down the debt?

I would hope that you face reality and realize that sacrifices are needed by all to address this problem. That means entitlements and defense spending are required to be included.

For once I call on you to sacrifice for the common good.

Posted by: mwhoke | November 11, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a far left Liberal Progressive who lives in a bubble.
She is also extremely wealthy and doesn't care if the USA goes bankrupt paying out entitlements to the 40% of Americans and Illegals who don't even pay taxes.
She is an idealog, and won't face up to the reality that we can't keep spending and borrowing, just like Obama.
The Fed keeps printing money and our dollar is worthless.
Other countries own us.

Posted by: joanz3 | November 11, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi has led the House for 4 long years and has not proposed any legislation to address our fiscal woes and in fact simply spent, spent, spent. She is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Posted by: nmauriello | November 11, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi has led the House for 4 long years and has not proposed any legislation to address our fiscal woes and in fact simply spent, spent, spent. She is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Posted by: nmauriello | November 11, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

same song different verse!!!!! Everybody wants to reduce the deficit, it has taken both parties to create this massive hole that we find ourselves in. They both throw mud blaming the other for this mess. Well chumps it is time to take control and do what needs to be done............but wait, what is that I hear?.........oh we need to cut the deficit, but I dont want you to cut my services, my entitlements, my "PAYCHECK". We have supposedly just ushered in those that would fix the problem, wait, watch and learn..........Nothing has changed, and it is business as usual in Washington, and you, the American Taxpayer, gets screwed again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TMarcinko | November 11, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

It is obvious that no one especially useless political hacks want to solve any problems for the people of the United States.

Let's hope new leadership will bring back the idea of representing the peoples interest not the lobbyists!

Posted by: satch63 | November 11, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

My message to the White House 11-11-2010.
Mr. President - Deficit Commission Report. I may or may not agree with all that is proposed, since all the detail is not yet available. I am, BTW, 70. Nancy Pelosi's comments can best be described as from a disturbed woman who does not accept the reality that this country is in trouble.

You and others with a sense of reality, I hope, will get rid of her or, I fear, you are going to see a backlash that has never been seen before.

Posted by: ChiefSignalman | November 11, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

My message to the White House 11-11-2010.
Mr. President - Deficit Commission Report. I may or may not agree with all that is proposed, since all the detail is not yet available. I am, BTW, 70. Nancy Pelosi's comments can best be described as from a disturbed woman who does not accept the reality that this country is in trouble.

You and others with a sense of reality, I hope, will get rid of her or, I fear, you are going to see a backlash that has never been seen before.

Posted by: ChiefSignalman | November 11, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

I have to say that I don't care what Ms. Pelosi says. She has no credibility! She rammed through the health care bill without reading, but she won't even consider the Bowles/Simpson effort?? With health care, she was actually adding to the problem by forcing something we can't afford. At least Simposn and Bowles are tyring to solve the problem, when Pelosi has not ideas that don't require spending additional money. She is indeed a criminal, who only knows how to spend someone else's money. During this critical period we do not need people like her in leadership positions.

Posted by: Prof-Dr-G | November 11, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

Very Interesting! I just now printed Coupons of my Favorite Brands for free at http://bit.ly/cRwn9f

Posted by: earvinjace11 | November 11, 2010 4:34 AM | Report abuse


You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price check http://bit.ly/bandYw .If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: abelardo11 | November 11, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

=======
=======
A foreign guy asked a good question:

>"Can someone explain to a person who isn't American like me, how most comments at the Washington Post argue that all of the financial problems facing the U.S. are the clear fault of president Obama, who has been in power about 19 months? This is a real mystery to me and i am sure someone can explain this for me."

Sure Pierre, I'd be happy to!

The republican party hired a PR firm in Alexandria, VA to post messages on selected internet sites in order to fool people into thinking everyone hates Obama. After analyzing the IP addresses of commenters here, the Post even published the PR firm's name a few months ago. They almost certainly

You can tell when it's them because they use multiple identities and all say they agree with the other identities by name.

Also, sometimes when a new order comes down from the pig, rove, you see them all simultaneously start using an identical phrase which was rare or nonexistent before.

Also, we observe that they are told by someone, probably their manager at the PR firm, which articles to flood, because when they're not in a comments section (like for local politics or when a repiglican screws up, the comments are overwhelmingly Liberal, and the few right-wingers who post tend not to make a single, coherent message, talk about themselves, have spelling errors, and make statements, not sarcasm. They also often make crazy or stupid statements typical of tea-party" dimwits and birthers. They'll say that Obama is Hitler, foir instance.

I'm sure the PR stooges do that too on sites where stupid people hang out, but at the post, the fakes--which either appear en-masse or not at all--post a torrent of grammatically-correct, sarcastic messages all making the same, single point. They blame and ridicule , and blame Obama for everything under the sun, including bush's messes.

--faye kane, homeless idiot-savant
More of my smartmouth at http://tinyurl.com/fayescave

Posted by: Knee_Cheese_Zarathustra | November 11, 2010 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Ok, Fine.

But I have a challenge to ANYBODY -- Republican or Democrat -- who opposes this plan.

Just shut your friggen mouths and give us YOUR plan that even attempts to make a serious dent in this insane, unfair, and unsustainable debt mess we are in.

Go ahead.

Posted by: SwellLevel5 | November 10, 2010 5:35 PM
___________________________________________

Sure friend here goes:

Remove the ceiling on income subject to Social Security tax. Subject Social Security receipt to means testing. That alone fixes Social Security permanently.

Pass universal health care plan which saves estimated 200 billion per year.

Allow the Obama health care plan to work. The CBO estimate is 190 billion dollars saved in Medicare once the provisions go through, and no that doesn't mean seniors will not get their benefits, the savings are through efficiencies.

Do not extend the Bush tax cuts for wealthiest Americans (those earning one million dollars or more) and you save 700 billion over 10 years or 70 billion a year.

Cut defense by 15% saves 105 billion.

Insist that hedge fund managers and other super earners pay income tax at the individual tax level and knock out the insane premise that fees aren't income. Why should a wall street baron pay a lower tax rate then I as a solidly middle class guy pays? That's estimated to be as much as 20 billion a year.

End farm subsidies. End subsidies for ethanol. Thats 22 billion per year.

Good enough start?

Posted by: army164 | November 10, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I like the plan.... I'm a homeowner.... I'll retire in a few years.... I'm a veteran.... I know that we all need to sacrifice, it sucks but épée are where we are. Let's start the cuts so that we have something left! Pelosi? Rot in he'll you stupid, rotten Bi&/h!!

Posted by: Capitalist-1 | November 10, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Good for Pelosi.

Posted by: ejs2 | November 10, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

mdsinc,

Are you refering to the VA property in West L.A.? The feds have had that property of nearly 400 acres since 1888 when it was donated to be used for veterans. There is a veteran's medical facility there. My great-uncle, a WWII vet, received care there.

Feinstein wasn't trying to build a veteran's home, her earmark was trying to control of the land away from the VA. The VA wanted to lease some of the underutilized land to help pay for veteran's care. Feinsten was trying to preserve it as a park which was obviously what the Beverly Hills residents to the east preferred. Of course, what she did was outrageous because the VA sure could of used the money to better care for our nation's veterans.

Posted by: sammann | November 10, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

So pelosi wants a miracle.

Nice, way to be in touch with reality.

Maybe we should just let you and your staff go crazy with Chinese typewriters.... and call the masterpiece creation "economic reform bill"

then, we can hire some chinese people to find out what is in the bill.

maybe we can open it for christmas.

Posted by: docwhocuts | November 10, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

People tend to forget that Nancy considers herself to be both president and God.

Posted by: jibe | November 10, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of you rubes making stupid comments even know what is IN the plan....
Let's see:
Increased retirement age AGAIN
Decreased SS
Decreased Medicare
Oh, and NO mortgage interest deduction on your taxes (Figured that would prick a few ears).
15% tax increase on gas
Decreased funding to social programs
Decreased military funding (FINALLY!)
Oh, and here is a sensible one, END THE TAX CUTS!
While I do not like the cuts to Medicare and SS, I think that it is great that the stupid unaffordable tax cuts are being recommended to end..
We have financial issues, WHY WOULD WE KEEP THE *)^&(&%(*& TAX CUTS????

Posted by: phorse | November 10, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain to a person who isnt American like me how most posters to the Washington Post argue that all of the financial problems facing the US are the clear fault of president Obama who by my calculations has been in power about 19 months? This is a real mystery to me and i am sure someone can explain this for me.

Posted by: rwgrobinson | November 10, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Ding dong the witch is dead!!! What this poison troll says no longer matters. Take a long walk on the ice, Hag!

Posted by: carlbatey | November 10, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Boy, the ignorant old freak didn't waste any time, did she? What a cancerous, despicable demagogue.

Posted by: thebump | November 10, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"(Bush & the Republicans, with the help of the Tea Party rubes) have thoroughly screwed over America's poor and middle class, divided the country along racial and monetary lines more than ever before, damn near destroyed the economy, have pitted the so-called "haves" and "have nots" against each another and they are dead set on bringing America's health care system to its knees..."

There, JAH3, I fixed your comment so that it is accurate and truthful.

Posted by: obsolete777 | November 10, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse


Pray tell, how can a woman who the entire country of the United States of America just repudiated this week as someone they no longer trust or wish to lead the Congress and this conclusion has completely escaped Nancy Pelosi, be trusted to ascertain whether another's views are correct or incorrect?

I mean, the world thinks Nancy Pelosi stinks on ice and she doesn't get it? Yet, she thinks her opinion ranks higher than someone that the country designated as the new leader of Congress' opinion ranks?

Nancy Pelosi has the beginning of a mental disease, it's called delusions of grandure.

Posted by: prossers7 | November 10, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse


Pray tell, how can a woman who the entire country of the United States of America just repudiated this week as someone they no longer trust or wish to lead the Congress and this conclusion has completely escaped Nancy Pelosi, be trusted to ascertain whether another's views are correct or incorrect?

I mean, the world thinks Nancy Pelosi stinks on ice and she doesn't get it? Yet, she thinks her opinion ranks higher than someone that the country designated as the new leader of Congress' opinion ranks?

Nancy Pelosi has the beginning of a mental disease, it's called delusions of grandure.

Posted by: prossers7 | November 10, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse


Pray tell, how can a woman who the entire country of the United States of America just repudiated this week as someone they no longer trust or wish to lead the Congress and this conclusion has completely escaped Nancy Pelosi, be trusted to ascertain whether another's views are correct or incorrect?

I mean, the world thinks Nancy Pelosi stinks on ice and she doesn't get it? Yet, she thinks her opinion ranks higher than someone that the country designated as the new leader of Congress' opinion ranks?

Nancy Pelosi has the beginning of a mental disease, it's called delusions of grandure.

Posted by: prossers7 | November 10, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Nancy! You got my vote on this!

Posted by: laSerenissima2003 | November 10, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Thank God for Nancy- glad to see that someone is standing firm looking out for the best interests of the working class. While I most agree that SS is a nasty operationally unsustainable beast, and while maintaining my concerns/doubts about whether my generation will ever see its benefits, it is clear that not providing adequate funding is NOT a feasible solution to its scalability problem.

Congress needs to either fix SS as we know it, or present an alternate solution. Yet rendering today’s sole structure non-operational through funding cuts is NOT a true solution to the deficit problem facing us today- America deserves REAL solutions.

Posted by: choco2mango | November 10, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Nancy's disapproval means that the recommendations will be swiftly enacted.

Posted by: etronsen | November 10, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure Nancy's opposition will have a proposal - keep the tax cuts for the wealthy, but let the rest of the tax cuts expire. I mean, it's only fair.

Posted by: Keesvan | November 10, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Nancy is totally correct in denouncing the Deficit Commissions' proposals as unacceptable and DOA.

Posted by: seasalt | November 10, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I barely have two cents to rub together nowadays, so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but unless Pelosi has concrete options, she ought to keep her mouth shut and listen for a change.

She (with the help of the other two knuckleheads -- Obama and Reid) has throughly screwed over America's poor and middle class, divided the country along racial and monetary lines more than ever before, damn near destroyed the economy, have pitted the so-called "haves" and "have nots" against each another and she's dead set on bringing America's health care system to its knees...yet she still has a voice in my future.

It makes no sense.

Posted by: JAH3 | November 10, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) soon to be Minority Leader STILL doesn't get it! Democrats, enjoy your minority party status, what a leader, Nancy Peloci (D-San Fran, Left Coast).

Posted by: Drudge1 | November 10, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

pssstt........ pelosi

YOU are unacceptable

to america

for details

see nov 2 2010

Posted by: ProCounsel | November 10, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I think that a serious injustice will be made if they do what they are proposing. I am surprised that Nancy Pelosi thinks it is unacceptable. That is new for her. When social security was instituted, no one was ever supposed to dip into that pot. For a very long time, this pot has had many hands in it and it is no wonder the pot is almost empty. Of course that is stretching it a bit, but if we continue on the same path it will be empty in no time at all. I hope those who contributed to the problem are very proud of themselves. I hope when the pitching in time gets here, EVERYONE will be pitching in and not a select few, which has always been the case before. We are told to tighten our belts which cannot be tightened any more, yet the government spends like there is no tomorrow. Well, tomorrow is here and you have spent us into the poor house, now what is the plan to get us out of it???? I think a lot of us would like to know the answer to that one.

Posted by: jcole6320 | November 10, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

pssstt........ pelosi

YOU are unacceptable

to america

for details

see nov 2 2010

Posted by: ProCounsel | November 10, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Social Security can easily be assured many years in the future by changing it from a regressive tax into a flat tax. That is, ending the $107,000 income exemption and taxing all earnings.

But no, the rich and powerful want you to work until you're 69 instead. No rest at the end of life for the common people. Just like vacation time, retirement will be a privilege, instead of a right under these greedy hypocrites of the "deficit commission."

Posted by: AnonymousBE1 | November 10, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Message to Congress -mess with mortgage interest deduction and you will join the ranks of the unemployed in 2012.

Posted by: thuitink | November 10, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

It's a start. What's your plan Nancy?

Posted by: logan303 | November 10, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Nancy is right. We all have to pitch in to correct the budget disasters brought on by two wars fought for Dubyas lies of WMD and never accounted for in the budget it cannot once again rest on the backs of our poor and middle classes. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is a recipe for more disaster and fatter cats on Wall Street. Who exactly believes they will trickle anything down from their greedy pockets? America was once the home of the brave but it has never been the home of the all for us and none for the rest. OBAMANOS!

Posted by: jbento | November 10, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Doing away with the mortgage interest deduction would collapse the housing market.

Posted by: TheHillman | November 10, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Dear Nancy,

Eventually, you run out of other peoples money!

P.S. - Your Dear Departed "Lion of the Senate" Ted Kennedy, proposed legislation in the Senate in the 1960's that allowed Social Security TRUST FUND dollars to be counted and spent as part of the General Budget. It passed and Democrats have been kissing his rear ever since.

Want to know WHY there is not enough money in the SS Trust Fund, it's because YOU, NANCY, SPENT IT!

Let me remind you that your other dear friend and neighbor, Diane Finestein, ear marked $4 BILLION for a Veterans Home in the 90210 zip code. NO, and I mean NO Veterans are there. But it did raise real estate prices in the area.

Austerity measures are immanent. They will be necessary. We will stop your spending. Hopefully we stop it before we are all living in FEMA trailers.

Posted by: mdsinc | November 10, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Ok, Fine.

But I have a challenge to ANYBODY -- Republican or Democrat -- who opposes this plan.

Just shut your friggen mouths and give us YOUR plan that even attempts to make a serious dent in this insane, unfair, and unsustainable debt mess we are in.

Go ahead.

Posted by: SwellLevel5 | November 10, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company