Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Kids in Charge
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, October 23, 2006

Congresswoman Nancy Peolosi certainly knows her party. Speaking about her expected election to the House Speaker's chair, she tells the LA Times:
The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children.
It's hard to argue with that, I guess.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Thank you for the laugh. Really need it during this season.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
LoL, what a moron!
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://moorejack.ytmnd.com/
"Nosce te ipsum" - always good advice. Sounds like Pelosi takes it seriously.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
I saw the hands of America’s children comment as code for the checkbook will be opened as it is all "for the children".

Let the spending begin.

By the way, these new fiscally responsible Democrats will tax like a drunken sailor to support their spending like a drunken sailor.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
The Democrats will no longer be accepting contributions from the unions, environmentalists, the trial lawyers or George Soros? Finally somebody is doing something to rid politics of corruption by special interests. Its about time.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
By the way, these new fiscally responsible Democrats will tax like a drunken sailor to support their spending like a drunken sailor.
This is a valid concern for anyone who is not supportive of Republicans.

For Republicans who still support THESE Republicans, they have lost any claim to making accusations about over-spending.

And by the way, I would suggest that if our government wants to spend more than one cent above government reciepts, they should be REQUIRED by law to pass tax increases simultaneously. It is idiotic to think that a spending increase is not a tax increase just because the tax rates were not passed at the time.

We could call it the "Automatic Tax Increase Requirement Because SOME Folks Are Too Dumb To Realize That a Spending Increase IS A Defacto Tax Increase".

Spending is easy, taxing is harder, force government to ask us to pay for their spending, we may not oppose the spending, but when we realize we need to pay for it, here, and now, spending increases might be tempered.

Cap

 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
The Democrats will no longer be accepting contributions from the unions, environmentalists, the trial lawyers or George Soros? Finally somebody is doing something to rid politics of corruption by special interests. Its about time.
I like unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers, and George Soros, but I still agree with you point.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I like unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers, and George Soros, but I still agree with you point.
Probably pointless to ask Cap, but why? Unions ran their course and now do more harm than good. Environmentalists... whacko’s infiltrated by the fregs of the communist party... trial lawyers???? yes, I see that winning 500 million dollar lawsuits because you chose to smoke your whole life is a good thing... Soros? Cripes, I’ll have to give you that one. The guy drops money like it’s going out of style. That’s at least good for the economy.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
In other words the TANSTAAFL amendment, Captn...

Of course, increasing tax rates are no guarantee that tax revenues are going to increase...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://
Probably pointless to ask Cap, but why? Unions ran their course and now do more harm than good. Environmentalists... whacko’s infiltrated by the fregs of the communist party... trial lawyers???? yes, I see that winning 500 million dollar lawsuits because you chose to smoke your whole life is a good thing... Soros? Cripes, I’ll have to give you that one. The guy drops money like it’s going out of style. That’s at least good for the economy.
I’ll answer but it’s probably pointless.

Unions - How can you say that unions ran their course? Have corporations ran their course? Do corporations no longer consider the bottom line? I’ll borrow from te AFL-CIO - "Unions are as important as they ever were—because corporations are just as dedicated to their bottom line, regardless of the consequences for workers. The nature of work in America is changing. Employers are trying to shed responsibilities—for providing health insurance, good pension coverage, reasonable work hours and job safety protections, for example—while making workers’ jobs and incomes less secure through downsizing, part-timing and contracting out. Working people need a voice at work to keep employers from making our jobs look like they did 100 years ago, with sweatshop conditions, unlivable wages and 70-hour workweeks."

Environmentalists - Of course they are important. I’m not suggesting that environmentalists should win every debate or get their way every time, but it is absolutely critical that the arguments of environmentalists are part of the debate. Sometimes the cost of acquiescing to environmental concerns is prohibitive, sometimes the cost of not acquiescing to environmental concerns is prohibitive. But why would anyone think the opinions of environmentalists should not be heard as loudly as any other lobbying efforts?


Trial lawyers - Again, anytime you have someone (especially moneyed interests) advocating (lobbying) to limit their liability for the decisions and or products they make, there should be an interest looking out for the people that will potentially be harmed. This is a no-brainer. People should have the right to avail themselves of the legal system to seek justice. Beyond this, I agree that frivolous suits should be dismissed, but generally speaking, frivlous suits ARE dismissed. The cases that get attention are the rare failures where by some perfect storm of legalese, a frivolous suit is rewarded, but even these are usually reversed on appeal, AFTER the headlines point out apparent breakage in the justice system, and the reversal rarely gets headlines. Go look up the full story of the McDonald’s coffee case. Here are some basic facts, but the reality is that this poster child for frivolous was not so frivolous after all. You don’t want to roll back the ability of corporations to lobby for less liability, yet you consider the group that lobbies to protect the rights of people to be dismissable.

McDonald’s Coffee Case Facts

George Soros - Just a guy spending his own money to espouse his own point of view. Like we don’t need a balance for Richard Scaife, Rupert Murdoch, et al.

As you may have noticed, I am concerned about balance. I don’t want balance in the way media offers balance, giving any two opposing ideas the same weight regardless of how stupid one may be, but a balance of access to power, followed by a genuine debate of the merits (hahahaha) and may the best ideas win.

Now, all that said, I would gladly shut down every cent of political spending from all of these groups, and all of the groups on the other side, in favor of publically financed elections so the debate could actually BE on the merits, not based on who is paying for lunch.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
In other words the TANSTAAFL amendment, Captn...
Yes, no such thing!
Of course, increasing tax rates are no guarantee that tax revenues are going to increase...
I think this is more of a Congressional house training law than a balanced budget amendment. You want to spend money (pee on the carpet) then I’ll smack your nose (make you vote for raising taxes).

Further, I think that the tax hike should be on the top 1% only in these special circumstances, not for tax progressivity reasons, but simply for the politically obvious reason that Congress, both sides, would be sticking it to the people that are most influential in firing them... for now.

Cap
 
Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
By the way, these new fiscally responsible Democrats will tax like a drunken sailor to support their spending like a drunken sailor.
Two points: first, comparing recent congresses to drunken sailors is very unfair to drunken sailors. Second, who is more irresponsible: tax-and-spend Democrats, or spend-and-spend Republicans?
 
Written By: Bitter
URL: http://qando.net/
Now, all that said, I would gladly shut down every cent of political spending from all of these groups, and all of the groups on the other side, in favor of publically financed elections...
Why not let the individuals of said groups pony up as much as they like - on an individual basis, with immediate and public disclosure - instead of yet another thing the government has to pay for?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider