America - Pelosi Thinks You're Stupid

[Bann (Premo)]

You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.

A. I don't hear anyone saying there has to be a better name for it.

B. SOMEone is going to be paying for it! It ain't coming out of her paycheck. And I don't believe a word about the startup money being repaid. That's a crock.


Pelosi: Health care 'public option' needs new name

[aps45819 (Premo)]

She keeps getting re-elected.
How can she not think her constituents are stupid?

[Vince]

I like Pelosi almost as much as I like Obama.

[Bann (Premo)]

Originally Posted by aps45819

She keeps getting re-elected.
How can she not think her constituents are stupid?

True!!

Until we all wake up and start caring about our local politics - this is what can happen! Steny is but a heartbeat away from her job...

[ImnoMensa]

Originally Posted by Bann

True!!

Until we all wake up and start caring about our local politics - this is what can happen! Steny is but a heartbeat away from her job...

You have to look at where she runs her campaign from.

How can she not believe those people who vote for her are stupid.

Isnt Steny Hoyer just like her ?

Doesnt he come here every couple of years and say" I saved the base" and get elected ?
Then he goes back to Congress and say's he votes the way he wants to and it doesnt matter what his constituents want. Pelosi and Steny, two pea's in a pod.

[glhs837]

America - Pelosi Thinks You're Stupid

In other breaking news, water--- still wet. Sand----Still gritty.


back to you, bob!

[MMDad (Premo)]

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Originally Posted by Bann

A. I don't hear anyone saying there has to be a better name for it.

B. SOMEone is going to be paying for it! It ain't coming out of her paycheck. And I don't believe a word about the startup money being repaid. That's a crock.


Pelosi: Health care 'public option' needs new name

She is just being truthful. Taxpayers won't be paying for it. China will.

And since our debt has climbed to a level that we will never be able to pay it off, taxpayers will only pay the interest, not the actual cost. Until we go bankrupt. Then we all get to learn Mandarin.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by MMDad

[size=1]

She is just being truthful. Taxpayers won't be paying for it. China will.

And since our debt has climbed to a level that we will never be able to pay it off, taxpayers will only pay the interest, not the actual cost. Until we go bankrupt. Then we all get to learn Mandarin.

See, that's actually a good conversation we, as a people, never seem to have; how much debt is manageable? How much is a good idea?

We owe about $11 tril which is less than annual GDP; debt is less than one years 'income', so to speak. People take out 30 year mortgages that are 4 and 5 times annual income.

The problem, the questions, are, what are we taking on debt for? Does it pay a long term dividend? Does the debt contribute to economic health or is it just dead weight?

[chernmax (Premo)]

Just like TARP, If I remember correctly the monies being paid back by the banks etc, are not going to the treasury, the politico's decided to keep it in an endless slush fund piggy bank they can keep drawing from. That's what paid for Cash for Clunkers, TARP funds!

[MMDad (Premo)]

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

See, that's actually a good conversation we, as a people, never seem to have; how much debt is manageable? How much is a good idea?

We owe about $11 tril which is less than annual GDP; debt is less than one years 'income', so to speak. People take out 30 year mortgages that are 4 and 5 times annual income.

The problem, the questions, are, what are we taking on debt for? Does it pay a long term dividend? Does the debt contribute to economic health or is it just dead weight?

Using GDP is like budgeting with your gross pay instead of the net. The Fed takes in around 2.5 T, and spends more than 3 T.

They are also buying that house every year, while most people only buy one house at a time.

My mortgage is twice my annual gross, and three times my net. But since I am not adding another 18% of my net every year, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The Fed debt is more than four times their net income. They pay about 4% on that debt.