"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Nancy Pelosi had an interview yesterday with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, and Maria actually asked a good question! She challenged Nancy Pelosi on the Bush tax cuts, suggesting to Princess Nancy that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would be the same thing as a tax increase.
So here's the question: "Does the expiration of the Bush tax cuts mean that there will be tax increases?"
"That wasn't a tax increase,'' Pelosi said. "It is.. eliminating a tax decrease that was there... It was controversial to begin with. It is... a boon to those who have had it for now. But I think that you will see that happen.
"That affects, what? The upper two percent of our population. What we're trying to do is lower... taxes for the middle class, relieve burdens... on business. So that we can be competitive in job creation. And I think you'll see some interesting things emerge-- from the conversations we're having now. ''
What about allowing those tax breaks to expire at a fragile time in an economic recovery, the speaker was asked.
"I don't think many people here see, nor do the American people see those tax cuts at the high end as being job-creating,'' she said. "They don't... think that that's part of the reason we're in the fiscal, the budgetary situation that we're in, because those tax cuts cost money. And... they were... a cost to our budget, without any commensurate impact on the economy for job creation. To return money to the treasury. So, nobody sees those as a job-creator.
"Return money to the treasury?" Did you get that? Tanking earned income away from a small businessman --- and make no mistake, the vast majority of people who will suffer these tax increases are small businessmen and women --- so taking their money is "returning money to the treasury!"
If the voters of this country were (a) not government-educated; and (b) not so focused on their Hollywood celebrity news; they would run this barking moonbat out of office.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/48141
Jamie Dupree's Blog
If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.
Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!
Avg. rating: N/A
What others are saying
Is She Really That Dumb?
She said that on CNBC? Is the Hollow Eyed Hippie really to stupid to understand who she's talking too on CNBC? CNBC fans probably are a little bit beyond the dancing with the stars/survivor crowd. I think the real irony is that Pelosi doesn't even realize what a fool she made of herself. The only thing worse than lying, is making up a lie so stupid, that it doesn't make sense. Pelosi might be in a safe district, but my guess a lot of her minions in more moderate districts will be ex-Congressmen by this time next year. I really hope Pelosi continues interviewing on CNBC. Should be fun.
Bush Tax Cuts were not fair...
Hear me out. I realize the upper 2% pay the most taxes in sum. As a percentage of their income compared to the middle-class, it's another story.
The Fair Tax would have been the way to go and the Republicans snubbed it, so, repealing the Bush tax cuts when the Democrats take power was inevitable. I don't expect greedy politicians to figure that out no matter how much they preach simpler government and less taxes.
I'd love to see any party tell Americans that they are going start taking taxes out of their payroll check after they have been getting the whole thing for a few years and the economy is doing well.
lane the loser meyer
2 dollars, I want my 2 DOLLARS!
Google better off dead
public option
Why is the public option needed for "competition"? The only way for prices to be artificially high(without government help) would be from price fixing. Price fixing is a crime and if there are guilty parties among the insurance companies, they should go to prison. This would be a easier and cheaper option than the public variety.
Yes Pelosi, we are serious!
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971
(that ones short enough bn)
Varelse is unfortunately right. But do we have to have her as house speaker????
Morons...one and all
Nancy and any of the zombies that follow her are just that.
Snark, explain to me how I and my wife, who make less that 60k/yr together, are going to pay more in taxes after the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but are NOT experiencing a tax increase?
The President knowingly lied when he was campaigning. He knew that those making under 250k were going to pay more in taxes. He just relied on Sheeple like you, 3, labrijimetc., to lap it up and make excuses about it afterward.
As I often say to coworkers when ANYTHING goes wrong, It's BOOSHES fault.
Twisted Saint is my hero!
You've been working VERY hard this week TS, have a great weekend, you deserve it.
The American people can't vote out Pelosi
"If the voters of this country were (a) not government-educated; and (b) not so focused on their Hollywood celebrity news; they would run this barking moonbat out of office."
Only the people of San Fran can vote Pelosi out of office. You can question their education and their entertainment priorities, but the people of that city are very dedicated leftists. Pelosi is doing exactly what her voters want her to do. Pelosi can have that seat for as long as she wants it, no matter how much she louses things up.
Thankfully Harry Reid is a bit more vulnerable. The people of Nevada are not as rabidly leftist as the people of San Fransisco and it seems like they've had enough of him.
Public Option
If Nancy was to offer public option Education as opposed to Health, I would switch from Repub to Democrat. In the second interview sub health to education, it sounds so sweet.
@Snarky
"I understand your point about the treasury and "returning the money" but, this is about sound fiscal policy."
Can you say that with a straight face? Please tell me what congress and the current admin know about sound fiscal policy? Apparently they think sound fiscal policy is spending trillions of...aw hell you know what? They couldn't care less about sound fiscal policy. It's not their money. All they care about is giving away enough "free stuff" to get re-elected.
"if you can't offset tax cuts with more revenue or less spending, you're borrowing money against the future to cut taxes today."
Tax cuts and less spending. What a concept. Didn't even need Clark Howard for that one. But a congressman never thinks about how he/she can cut spending--- ever. That won't get them the votes. The only question is, how can I obfuscate it enough that the morons that vote for me don't notice?
"and now we're really hosed because we NEED the govt to spend now"
Ok-- just stop right there. Who told you that? The government? That makes as much sense as saying an alcholic needs to spend money at the liquor store. Seriously. Do you honestly believe that those buffoons in congress can make better spending decisions with your money than you can? If you honestly believe that, there may be no hope for you.
Pelosi
Wow, are you kidding me? She confuses the hell out of me every time she opens her mouth. What a doof-a-zoid.
Unemployment higher than expected
If anyone thinks that small business has closed rank and circled the wagons, wait till taxes go up. I predict unemployment will go to 15%. What's up with this woman? Is she a socialist or something?
Moonbat Pelosi
We need to get her and the liberal idiots the hell out of office NOW!!
Revenue did increase, problem is
Spending increased faster.
Snarky, it's called google
Enter a few keywords like "federal income tax revenue by year" and you get links to dozens of reputable sites with charts and everything showing revenue increased markedly under the post-Bush tax-cut rules.
This is from head of CBO responding to Congress:
Growth in Federal Tax Revenues From 2003 to 2006 Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006. CBO’s analysis of that increase in revenues since 2003 is necessarily preliminary because relevant data are not yet fully available. CBO examined the available data using the commonly employed method of analyzing the sources of revenue growth as a percentage of GDP. Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. As a result, receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points (see Table 1, attached).
Money Versus Wealth
..than "return money to the Treasury"
Money is what the government prints as in currency. Wealth is the ability to produce or consume goods and services. As taxes increase money returns to the treasury and just as quickly wealth flees the economy. Either in the form of commodities gold oil etc or overseas or simply by reduction of production in one form or another.
Response to snarkybird
"it's called an unfunded tax cut."
-- Pick whatever words you want.
"revenues did not rise to fill the hole made by the cut in taxes and spending did not go down."
-- Are you not paying attention? Yes they did.
"it's the same as borrowing money."
-- Um. No.
"without a greater increase in revenue through tax cuts stimulating the economy or an equal or greater cut in spending, you create debt and deficit when you cut taxes like Bush did."
-- But we know that tax cuts DO stimulate the economy, even if you don't.
"I understand your point about the treasury and "returning the money" but, this is about sound fiscal policy."
-- To a Democrat this a no-brainer. Raising taxes is ALWAYS sound fiscal policy.
"if you can't offset tax cuts with more revenue or less spending, you're borrowing money against the future to cut taxes today."
-- Right.
"and now we're really hosed because we NEED the govt to spend now so the hole just gets bigger."
-- Your premise that we NEED the govt to spend more is false. We need to government to spend less. That way the private sector can spend more.
The government is simply spending money that it took from private individuals, who would have otherwise either spent or invested the money themselves.
it's a testament to one of many crappy situations Bush left undone.
spellcheck
Neal, I've never heard your show, yet I never miss a day reading your page. Great stuff! I wish you'd give someone permission, or the job, to spellcheck your stuff. Obviously, and understandably, you need speed through it and when you spellcheck, often glaring erred word replacements happen.
snarkybird: Do we have a duty to turn over our private property to the government no matter how much they want?
YES or NO ?
Death and Taxes
Quite a few wars and rebellions have begun over taxes, and rightly so. Humans have the right to resist violently resist a thief.
Nancy is right (I can't believe it)
Sure taxes return money to the Treasury. They are the ones busy printing it making it worthless.
Neal missed something worse...
...than "return money to the Treasury."
And that is the assertion that the top 2% don't create jobs. If you listen closely though, Nancy herself never takes that position. She only says that's how "many people" see it.
The interviewer should have asked her if that's how SHE sees it.
Moonbat Pelosi
RNC campaign strategy: Just let this crazy talk, talk, talk. Show video, play audio...just "Play Pelosi." Even if it is Pelosi talking about what she is picking up from the grocery store...LET HER SPEAK. Once you link DEMOCRAT-PELOSI on an endless loop...it is decades of prosperity for the Republicans!!
For those of you who think that we should all listen to David Frum:
Take note of this column entitled: Will the Rule of Law Survive Obama? http://www.newmajority.com/will-the-rule-of-law-survive-obama
So we have a duty to turn over our property to the government no matter how much they want?
??
Thanks
For posting an excerpt so I don't have to listen to her, it hurts my head, she is such a poor speaker.
10 Myths of Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm
Pelosi
God, I hate that b*tch!
Ok, So This Isn't a Tax INCREASE?
Here's what the Heritage Foundation listed a few years back, on the effects of killing the Bush cuts. Read this and then tell us how it's 'only going to affect the "rich"': Child Credit: This credit will shrink from $1,000 to $700 per child on January 1, 2005. The 10 Percent Bracket: The upper income level for this bracket will decrease by $1,000 per filer on January 1, 2005. The 15 Percent Bracket for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2005, the upper limit of this bracket will shrink from 200 to 180 percent of the upper limit of the 15 percent bracket for single filers, creating a marriage penalty. Standard Deduction for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2005, this will shrink from 200 to 174 percent of the standard deduction for single filers, creating a marriage penalty. Alternative Minimum Tax: Exemptions will decrease by $6,500 per filer on January 1, 2005. Bonus Depreciation: This provision, which changes depreciation schedules for businesses in a way that encourages investment, will expire on January 1, 2005. Small Business Expensing: On January 1, 2006, the maximum amount that a business may deduct will fall from $100,000 to $25,000, which will not be indexed to inflation. Capital Gains: Rates will rise to 10 or 20 percent, depending upon income, on January 1, 2009. Dividends: Rates will rise to match standard income tax rates on January 1, 2009. Child Credit: This credit will shrink from $700 to $500 per child on January 1, 2011. The Income Tax: Rates will increase between 3 and 4.5 percentage points in each bracket on January 1, 2011. The 10 Percent Bracket: The bracket will be eliminated on January 1, 2011, raising the income tax burden of many workers by 5 percentage points. The 15 Percent Bracket for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, the upper limit of this bracket will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the upper limit of the 15 percent bracket for single filers, creating a marriage penalty. Standard Deduction for Joint Filers: On January 1, 2011, this will shrink from 200 to 167 percent of the standard deduction for single filers, creating a marriage penalty. The Estate Tax: The top rate for this tax will increase to 60 percent on January 1, 2011, and the value of an estate exempt from taxation will shrink to $1 million, which is less than it is today.
hahaha
The Bush tax cuts were as useful as the iraqi war that spent billions a month. NOT HELPFUL AT ALL
Unfortunately
Unfortunately, the people who keep electing this barking moonbat into office are barking moonbats themselves. The idea that any sensible politician could be elected in San Francisco is ridiculous. Nancy is around to stay. What we need to do in 2010 is get the other Dems out of office so she is no longer Speaker.
I feel like I lost something.
I lost more intelligence listening to this woman dance and skirt around the question. After a while I found myself staring blankly at the screen marveling at her basically saying we are too dumb to realize that eliminating a tax DECREASE does not equal a tax INCREASE because it was controversial.
Idiot
Gawd that woman is a complete mook.
Where's her Crystal Ball?
Everytime I hear or see that woman I keep looking for the flying monkeys.
Fancy Nancy
The BOTOX made her do it.
Pelosi
She is without a doubt one of the dumbest people I've ever seen in my life. I can't wait to see which trolls bother to actually post on this thread to defend her.
Princess Nancy
That monicker says it all. The present group of elected officials (r's and d's) represents a welfare class more putrid, selfish, and corrupt than any welfare brood mare. And with their messiah in charge, they have dropped all pretenses. And the masses are so enamored and bedazzled by ANYONE with a title or who gets publicity, that they take everything these dimwits say as profound truth. The reality is that the vast majority of bureaucrats (like educators) wouldn't survive 30 days without the government dole.
Revenue went up
Federal tax revenues went UP after Bush’s tax cuts were enacted, as they always do when taxes are too high. Even JFK understood this. Tax revenue went up, unemployment went down to record lows, the DOW broke 14000, yep, Bush’s tax cuts sucked for the country.
she's right
it's called an unfunded tax cut.
revenues did not rise to fill the hole made by the cut in taxes and spending did not go down.
it's the same as borrowing money.
without a greater increase in revenue through tax cuts stimulating the economy or an equal or greater cut in spending, you create debt and deficit when you cut taxes like Bush did.
I understand your point about the treasury and "returning the money" but, this is about sound fiscal policy.
if you can't offset tax cuts with more revenue or less spending, you're borrowing money against the future to cut taxes today.
and now we're really hosed because we NEED the govt to spend now so the hole just gets bigger.
it's a testament to one of many crappy situations Bush left undone.
Search Boortz.com
