Nancy Pelosi as Fiscal Conservative : How Did I Miss This One?
57No New Deficit Spending!
That's right. On January 4, 2007--her first day as Speaker of the House--a much younger-looking Nancy Pelosi promised her regime would allow no new deficit spending. And I missed it! How could this be? Such a remarkably dishonest declaration is not something that would go unnoticed at the Border Fort in the here and now, doncha know! (Yes, I said "dishonest". There's no way she could possibly be who she is and believe herself...could she? Or...multiple personalities, perhaps?)
A few tidbits come immediately to mind:
1. The oversight mystery is solved: On January 4 of 2007, I was celebrating my first full month of employment as a driver during the Colorado gasfield drilling boom, jockeying big-rig water tankers in horrible weather and facing unspeakable road conditions. Our average work week at the time was 70 hours. On my days off, I drove 400 miles home to see my wife, then turned around 36 hours later to retrace the route. Politics was not on my plate in the slightest degree.
2. Though we had cable TV at "Pam's house" and at my work apartment, neither of us watched much news--let alone political news. She went for the Soaps; I focused on animated stuff like Kim Possible and Lilo & Stich (neither of which is available on DirecTV these days...for whatever reason).
3. We weren't scared yet. Yes, we needed to come up with a suitable home so I could get Pam moved from eastern Colorado to the western slope. (We managed that in March '07...only to lose the place when my job got Obamified in March '09.) "Scared" happened the moment we saw Obama-as-candidate for the first time. "Horrified" came along when he actually nailed the Democratic nomination. "Oh s***!" was a result of Election Day '08. But all of that came later.
4. Nasty Nancy got the gavel just four years ago...but she looked 20 years younger than she does today. It's hard being a tax-and-spend queen!
The difference in her appearance is really noticeable in this video.
Road Conditions
Hm. I can hear it now, all those gears grinding in the minds of readers, thinking, "Yeah, right. Bet that job wasn't all that. Huh!"
For the skeptics, this isn't likely to change your minds...but here's a photo of one of the actual Production Transport trucks I was driving at the time. At least it's an International. Love those, much more than the newer Petes the company later purchased to double the size of the fleet....
Nancy Pelosi Today
In that video, she doesn't look bad for an anti-gun, lifetime California ultra-lib, does she? Oh, she's always been evil enough; I'd vote for her to assassinate 101 Dalmation puppies any day. But no, not hideous at all.
Check out the difference. Here's Pompous Pelosi a bit more recently.
Specifics
We've cracked the code: In Democrat-speak, "no new deficit spending" means "add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit in the next 4 years". It must--since that's exactly what the Dems have done did.
Perhaps the most important statistic is the size of the deficit expressed as a percentage of our nation's Gross National Product. That's better than dollar figures, mostly because it automatically adjusts for inflation. Let's take a look at how deficit-to-GNP ratios have fared for the past 100...ah, heck, the past 110 years...shall we?
Looking Ahead
Okay. We've had those two huge debt-spikes, one for each of the two World Wars. Then we did pretty well until...yep. Until 2007. See that last spike, climbing up the right wall of the chart with no end in sight? That's all on Pelosi's watch.
Let's see if John Boehner can do better. Much better. His odds are certainly favorable, what with an absolutely huge freshman class of Representatives being sworn in next week...and with Michelle Bachmann having founded the Congressional Tea Party Caucus to help those freshmen remember their roots.
Wonder how old Nancy will look after Sarah Palin knocks Obama back to Chicago in 2012?
Remember in November 2012.
CommentsLoading...
Pop, I really do understand. Obama's slippery-slidey maneuvers really are looking a bit more like Slick Willie Clinton on a bad hair day. He WON'T be an easy pickoff, no matter who the Republican opponent may be.
But let me share what insight I have on the matter. Just a bit here, waiting to see if Sarah chooses to run...or not. (Whichever choice she makes, I know it will not be made lightly.) If she does announce her candidacy, then I'll be opening up with all guns blazing in her support--and I do have a bunker full of ammo reserved for that specific mission (political ammo, guys; put down the S.W.A.T. togs).
Conventional wisdom has it that anyone BUT Palin would have a better chance against the Gulagator. I believe conventional wisdom is 180 degrees, dead off-course wrong...and that our Lady of Alaska is the ONLY one who can beat him.
There's a bond between me and Sarah that probably can't be adequately described. We've not met--except in the dream state, where we have communicated briefly--but I KNOW her at a depth I suspect is granted to few other mortals. No, not the Biblical version of "know", as in carnal knowledge--it's more a Brother In Arms thing.
What that knowing tells me is that the Left is right to fear her...because she's an absolutely brilliant politician who truly does listen to her spiritual inner guidance and who has grounded herself so thoroughly that beating her when she's calling the shots in 2012 would be as impossible as a couple of smart-alecky civilians thinking they were going to waltz in and take over 50 Caliber's Fire Base Diamondback without an express invite.
Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
(*Ungh!*) Extreme effort required! To shut off the flow of knowingness, all that awareness of Palin Power! Like trying to catch Niagara Falls in a Tea Party Cup!
(*Whew!*) Okay. More later, then....
I see three spikes over 10%. The first two are world wars. Is this a clue to things to come?
Seems like a saw a TV show recently where it was apparent that, at least in her personal life and fortune, she is a fiscal conservative. If I recall correctly her net worth is advertised to have gone up from 1 or 2 million, to close to 10 million. Or is that 'share the wealth' in action?
Hard to say. Those World War spikes don't begin shooting up (pun intended) until the wars are begun, but now? The New START treaty is a fine step in that direction. If Obama actually manages to knock our military response capabilities low enough (and he's sure 'nuff giving it the old Harvard Professor try), that WOULD encourage dangerous regimes like North Korea and Iran to fire things up beyond current posturing levels. Which surely COULD lead to World War III.
If they don't fear us, they will smear us.
I'd say you hit it on the head with "share the wealth". Have yet to read about a single Congress-critter taking a vow of poverty to better serve the People.
I think the last government offical who tried to return to the life he came from was Harry Truman. He retired in 1952, and may have been the the first President to be awarded a pension, primarily because Congress, for whatever reason, objected to him paying for and licking his own stamps. Eisenhower was the same way, tried to return to the simpler life.
When we started offering pensions we created a new career path that seems to have evolved into a career path for those most likely to be corruptible, career-politicians. It is my belief that this occurred because our Congress critters realized they could write Orwellian Animal Farm (OAF) laws of equality. It wouldn't have happened if they did not have an income guaranteed by the 16th amendment, the Income Tax.
I didn't know that about Truman, but it would fit the dude.
Agree with you on OAF. Reckon We the People probably need to dump the 17th Amendment before the 16th, but they both surely need to hit the dustbins of history.
breakfastpop Level 8 Commenter 17 months ago
Dear Ghost,
I'm not so sure about Palin knocking Obama anywhere which bothers me, but Nancy will get her Botox shots and just keep annoying all of us.