Nancy Pelosi Makes a Point

That's so true. It's like governors like Rick Perry complain about the Federal government until there's a huge wildfire or hurricane decimating his state and then he can't run to the Federal government for aid fast enough.

Bachmann's strategy seems to be taking a cue from Homer Simpson when he ran for sanitation commissioner by making crazy promises she can't possibly deliver upon. Or it's like in junior high where candidates would promise a pop machine in the cafeteria though they didn't have the power to actually make that happen.

Chelsea;

I have said before and will say again...if we simply ignore the Bachman's, Palin's, Angle's, et al...evantually their lustre will fade as will their popularity.

As for Congresswoman Pelosi's comment: "The thing is, they're on Medicare. They're on Social Security. They have Uncle Sam's hand in their pocket with them every step of the way, and they're against government,"

What Mrs Pelosi fails to realize is the fact that Medicare and Social Security are NOT options that the American worker (those that still have jobs) can opt-out of. It is a Federal crime to NOT pay your "share" into Social Security and/or Medicare. So her comment that "they" (whomever "they" are) are on Social Security, on Medicare is NOT by choice but by mandate.

Mrs Pelosi is absolutely correct when she states that "They have Uncle Sam's hand in their pocket with them every step of the way" and I believe that is why so many Americans are upset...we DO NOT trust Uncle Sam to spend our hard earned money wisely. COngress has NOT demonstrated that they are capable of being good stewarts of the tax-payers money and it seems that the Mrs. Pelosi's, the Mr Boehner's, the Mr Reid's, the Mr McConnell's ALL fail miserablly at their jobs and only want more and more and more $$$ and trust form the already over-taxed citizens.

At least that's the way I see things.

Respectfully

I'm not the biggest fan of Pelosi, but she is a good woman and she has done and said a lot that is right. No one is perfect, but we sure could do with more Pelosis and less Santorums and Perrys.

It has not been Uncle Sam that has made the big significant spending screwups ... I do not know why that is not just self-evident. Sure, parts of the government have been influenced or bought off NOT to do their jobs ... and work for the corporations, but you cannot blame the government for that ... at the heart they are being attacked from the inside by money and it needs to stop.

Bruce;

"Sure, parts of the government have been influenced or bought off NOT to do their jobs ... and work for the corporations, but you cannot blame the government for that ... at the heart they are being attacked from the inside by money and it needs to stop."

How can you say the above and then honestly state that it is not the governments fault? It is the elected politicians who have allowed and encouraged the corporation access to them...to trade votes for financial favor. Just look at the number of multi-millionaires in Congress - they have not gotten there on the $180+k per year government salary!

"at the heart they are being attacked from the inside..."! By "the inside" do you not mean "inside the political ferris wheel" known as Washington, generally and Congress, specifically? If NOT...please explain.

Respectfully

It is your body's fault that it gets sick and does not work properly when you do not take care of it and abuse it? I don't think so. Government is two things... it is real men, women and institutions, and it is an idea of a system for people living together. The attack the government meme that Republicans have gone on for 30 years now is absolutely wrong and was never analyzed or explained.

We have heard government is the problem for so long, and it never makes sense unless it is qualified, and then it make such a small amount of sense even then. People are the problem. Our government is like our Bible, it is frozen int he antiquity of time now, like the Koran, and we never let it change. It is just another way the people maintain their grip, by controlling and villifying the government at the same time.

Notice how Republicans NEVER have an idea of how to fix something of make it better. Well, rarely, they did overhaul welfare, and from my POV that is the only worthwhile thing Republicans have done during this time. With all the "business" experience from Republicans, why don't we hear about modern business practices of say Six Sigma, or TQM, or Just In Time Management, or CRM or whatever to upgrade and make our government work better, cheaper and more efficient.

The answer is that Republican want the government not to work, they want it to fail ... in fact ... Republicans want the govenrment to fail even when it does not - and a good example of that is the Post Office. The Post Office is not failing, it is one of the few things that works well in this country and it performs better than FE or UPS and delivers over ten times more stuff that both of them combined.

Repubilcans want the government to fail so they can then privatize it by giving the franchise to their friends and then the profits "tax" us the citizens and the prices get so high we cannot afford to send anything anywhere. Quality also goes down as well.

It is your body's fault that it gets sick and does not work properly when you do not take care of it and abuse it?

Nope. And that's actually a pretty good analogy, Bruce. Is it the market economy's fault that recessions happen and fraud is rampant, when government does not protect property rights and foster free production and exchange, and instead institutionalizes fraud and plunder and sabotages vital market signals; i.e., the nerve center of the market economy?

Government is two things... it is real men, women and institutions, and it is an idea of a system for people living together.

You leave out the essential element. Government is force. Government is compulsion and restrictions, backed by the threat of coercion.
As it relates to an "an idea of a system for people living together," the idea is this: what is the proper role of violence in society?
The answer to that question is the answer to What is the proper role of government in society.

The bond that holds civil society together is the market. If social cooperation under the division of labor was not more productive, if it were not mutually-beneficial for all who participate, then it would have never come about. Humans would live as savage beasts, each man or family for themselves, in a struggle to the death for access to the scarce supply of resources necessary for survival that nature makes readily available.
But our capacity for reason reveals to us that peaceful production and mutually-vountary exchange is more productive and increases utility for all involved. But social cooperation demands that all participants be secure in their property and that the obligations inherent in all contractual arrangements be met. It is the enforcement of these necessary rules that requires a collective pact we call law. "Government" is legitimately nothing more than the means by which we achieve the social end of justice.
To make it anything more than that is necessarily to illegitimately turn it into a means to destroy justice; to substitute the arbitrary rule of self-interested men for the rule of law.
Either the coercive force of government can be used strictly defensively to secure to each individual the sanctity of their physical person, the free and inoffensive use of their faculties, and the free disposition of the fruits of their labor; or it can be used offensively, as a tool for those who wish to traffic in the liberties and property of others.

Repubilcans want the government to fail so they can then privatize it by giving the franchise to their friends and then the profits "tax" us the citizens and the prices get so high we cannot afford to send anything anywhere

Question: What good is the franchise if it is "failed"? How can the politicians or their interested rent-seeking friends have their way with us if the government has "failed"?

Have you considered lining your theory up against the facts of practical experience? Such as the fact that the size, scope, and cost of government has grown just as exponentially under Republican congress's and presidents as it has under Democrats, regardless of the bromides and sophstry?

"Where do you think her and her husband's government dole comes from?"
"The thing is, they're on Medicare. They're on Social Security..."

This is such transparently disingenuous argumentation. What would you have them do?

If you're mugged at gunpoint in an alleyway, but then in a burst of conscience your assailant offers your property back to you, and you take it, does it follow that you would then be a hypocrite to denounce robbery?

I find it rather galling and presumptuous that DC politicians pronounce me too stupid and untrustworthy to provide for my own future ex ante, and take it upon themselves to induct me into their compulsory retirement fund program (which as it happens is little more than a pyramid scheme at gunpoint).
And the typical statist response to this point -- that people "still have the choice" to invest in private market-based retirement accounts -- is just question-begging. It misses the point entirely. The point is that we'd all be in a much better position to do that, if the portion of our incomes being confiscated to ostensibly make us eligible for "benefits" (and which constitute the funds being paid out to current "beneficiaries"), were not in fact being confiscated!!
That being said, should I be fortunate enough to make it 70 or 80 or 112 -- whatever the age requirement will be for one to qualify to get their confiscated money back by the time I'm old enough to begin receiving installments -- you can bet your *ss I'll be cashing them checks as they come.
If you or anyone else wants to take the position that that makes me a hypocrite, then be sure to be logically consistent, and consider anyone who takes the opportunity to have stolen property returned to them to necessarily be either pro-robbery or hypocritical.

That doesn’t mean Pelosi’s frustrations have abated. “For the past eight months,” she says, the White House has had “no celebratory bill signings. Do you remember any that they signed, any bill? No.”

Travesty! Obama and the Democracts haven't been able to celebrate foisting some more arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on the people with pompous photo-ops moments of Congressional "leaders" standing behind Obama as he signs a bill, with big signs and banners everywhere carrying pretentious slogans or Orwellian propaganda!
How will we manage?

She predicts that if Republicans hold on to the House and Obama is reelected, “it’s going to be two years again of a presidency without a legislative agenda.”

lmmfao. How dare they Republicans in Congress presume to stand in the way of the President's ability to write laws!

You gotta be kidding me.

Gridlock has been for some time the best we taxpayers could hope for sad to say. Every time these idiots gather to celebrate, those of us paying the bills just got screwed