This one quote sums up the way we SHOULD be doing health care reform:

“…do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.”

The stated reason of the democrats to undertake this massive takeover of the health care system was to “insure the 40 million uninsured.”

That number is misleading and inaccurate, but let’s assume for a moment that there are 40 million people who can’t afford insurance.  Tort reform and competition are the BEST ways to make it affordable, but let’s assume again for the sake of argument that the government needs to step in.

A family of four can get a pretty decent health insurance for about $400 per month.  That’s $4,800 per year for a family of four.  Now let’s assume an even worse case that the cost is $4,800 per person per year.  Multiply that times the 40 million claimed by the democrats to be uninsured and that comes out to $192,000,000,000.  That’s 192 billion dollars.

So if the government simply wrote those 40 million people a check to buy a PRIVATE insurance policy, it would be over 13 times LESS EXPENSIVE than the plan the democrats are pushing, and that’s using the most conservative estimates of the overall costs of $2.5 TRILLION.  Most think it will be much, much higher.

Again, looking at THE ORIGINAL STATED GOAL OF INSURING THE UNINSURED, I have to ask how can we possibly be going down this road and remotely think it’s a good way to go about it?

November 27, 2009

Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right

By Charles Krauthammer

Canada posted a record trade deficit in the third quarter of 2009, according to Statistics Canada figures released Friday.

The national statistical agency said Canada produced a current account deficit of $13.1 billion for the July-to-September period, mainly because the country bought more products from other countries than Canadian companies were able to sell overseas.

“A widening in the goods deficit more than offset a marginal narrowing in the services deficit and smaller investment income shortfall,” said Dawn Desjardins, assistant chief economist for RBC Economics Research.

Canada still sold more widgets to the United States than the country’s businesses and individuals purchased from the world’s biggest economy, Statistics Canada said.

But that surplus shrank as Canada’s import bill rose in the third quarter.

“Geographically, Canada continues to record a surplus on goods trade with the United States; however, this bilateral surplus continued to narrow in the third quarter, as Canadian imports from the United States advanced at a faster pace than Canadian exports to American markets,” Statistics Canada said.

Trade balance

A country’s current account position measures its sales of goods and services to foreigners and money inflows to the domestic economy compared to the same country’s purchases of goods and services from other nations and investment outflows to foreigners.

In the third quarter, Canada sold $90 billion in goods outside the country while purchasing $94 billion in foreign products. That resulted in a deficit in this category of $4 billion.

Canada also posted a $5.6-billion deficit on the service side of the trade ledger in the three-month period.

By contrast, Canada received $8.5 billion in repatriated profits and interest payments on foreign investments in the period versus the $8.1 billion in interest and earnings sent outside of the country.

The country’s deficit trade, which appeared in the third quarter, can act to reduce the value of the Canadian dollar. That is because more Canadians will be switching their dollars for other currencies in order to buy foreign goods and services.

The rise in imports purchases also can slow economic growth, said RCB.

“The rapid rise in imports in the third quarter points to the trade sector acting as a significant drag on the pace of GDP growth. RBC estimates that net exports trimmed 4.2 percentage points from the quarterly economic growth rate,” said Desjardins.

CONGRESSWOMAN BACHMANN: … People have had it. When they see what’s going on with ACORN, with this phony baloney healthcare bill … They are voting [the first vote] on a red line piece of paper, something that is all marked up. It’s not even actually written down. It not one word of a law has been written yet and these people took a vote on a bill that hasn’t been written. What’s worse is the federal government estimated how much this bill would cost. You can’t estimate how much it’s going to cost if you don’t have words on a sheet of paper telling you this is the actual bill language. One word can make all the difference in the bill, and they don’t have one word written of an actual legislative language. This is a travesty.
… [T]he dots are connecting between the federal government and ACORN. Very simply this is it: The federal government wrote a law called the Community Reinvestment Act. It demands that banks make loans to people who are poor credit risks. So that law was already passed. [Under Bill Clinton]

Then what happened, the federal government hung a threat over these banks because banks didn’t want to make loans to people who were poor credit risks… if the banks fail to lower their lending standards, then the federal government would shut down their interstate bank branches and they would not allow banks to open new branches. So in other words, the federal government would essentially shut these banks down if they refuse to make bad loans to people who wouldn’t be able to pay them back.

[O]ne way the banks could satisfy their requirement under the Community Reinvestment Act is they could partner with ACORN… So the banks, in order to be in compliance with the federal government, would give payoff money, so to speak, to ACORN in order to stay in the good graces with the federal government. I mean, what else would you call that but a payola?

[T]ake a page, a cue from Barney Frank. Over the weekend Barney Frank told a special interest group, if you want congress’ attention, you melt the phone lines… Trust me, hardly anyone picks up the phone. Hardly anyone makes the phone calls. .. We have to make those phone calls now until the end of the year… saying this is it: You take orders from me; I don’t take orders from you, and you do not pass healthcare and you defund ACORN and you do it now.
[There is] new coalition that is coming together, literally that is a huge tent that is sewn together with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The very parchment of those documents is the tent that we are coalescing against. Because what we recognize is as Americans we were given the most precious gift of any people of all time. And that was our declaration. And that was our Constitution. And in one year’s time, in a stunning move, we’ve seen the federal government take over 30% of all private wealth produced in this country. One year ago 100% of private business profits were private. Today 30% of private business profits are owned or controlled by the federal government. An economist from Arizona State University has calculated that since the inception of bailout nation, we have seen the federal government own or control 30% of private business profits… If the federal government lays claim to the private wealth produced in healthcare… that’s another 18%, or 48% of the private wealth. And if they lay claim through cap and trade, what Lindsey Graham is getting on board with, that’s another 8%, or 56% of the private wealth produced in this country. That’s stunning. At that point we are no longer a free market capitalist country.
I’m a former federal tax lawyer. My husband and I have raised five kids. We’ve raised 23 foster kids. We started a business. I had a really good life before I ever came to Washington D.C., and I left being at home with our family because I saw that my 23 foster kids and my five biological kids aren’t going to have a chance, not a chance if the federal government goes down this road.
Source: Glenn Beck Interview, October, 14, 2009

http://www.congress.org/ – easy way to contact your political leaders, national and state, by entering your zip.
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 – to phone Senators and Representatives

See all articles on this topic: ACORN, Ayers, Obama Connection
ACORN Helps Hookers, No Big Deal
ACORN to Have Input Into Obama’s Administration
Banks Ordered to Give $ to ACORN or Offer Risky Loans
Creation of a Totalitarian Regime

See all articles on this topic: ACORN, Ayers, Obama Connection
ACORN Helps Hookers, No Big Deal
ACORN to Have Input Into Obama’s Administration
Banks Ordered to Give $ to ACORN or Offer Risky Loans
Creation of a Totalitarian Regime

[That] which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime… is the general demand for quick and determined government action… dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal. It is than the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough “to get things done” who exercises the greatest appeal. “Strong” in this sense means not merely a numerical majority – it is the ineffectiveness of parliamentary majorities with which people are dissatisfied. What they will seek is somebody with such solid support as to inspire confidence that he can carry out whatever he wants. It is here that a new type of party, organized on military lines, comes in.
In the Central European countries the socialist parties had familiarized the masses with political organizations of a semi-military character designed to absorb as much as possible the private life of the members. All that was wanted to give one group overwhelming power was to carry the same principle somewhat further; to seek strength not in the assured votes of huge numbers at occasional elections but in the absolute and unreserved support of a smaller but more thoroughly organized body. The chance of imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader’s first collecting around him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that totalitarian discipline which they are to impose by force on the rest. Pg. 159

Source: About the source “Road to Serdom” – This book gradually took shape a warning to the socialist intelligentsia of England; with the inevitable delays of wartime production it finally appeared there early in the spring of 1944. – Hayak

See all articles on this topic: ACORN, Ayers, Obama Connection
ACORN Helps Hookers, No Big Deal
ACORN to Have Input Into Obama’s Administration
Banks Ordered to Give $ to ACORN or Offer Risky Loans
Creation of a Totalitarian Regime

“Bugetul general consolidat a înregistrat după primele nouă luni un deficit de 25,56 miliarde lei, respectiv 5,1% din PIB, în condiţiile unor venituri de 115,77 miliarde lei, 23,3% din PIB, şi a unor cheltuieli totale de 141,33 miliarde lei, respectiv 28,4% din PIB, potrivit datelor publicate de MFP.” Sursa: Capital

Pai hai sa facem niste calculule, calcalale, culcalale… calculele, calcule…la 2009 Sept (Q3)

Venituri bugetare = 115.77mld, Cheltuieli bugetare = 141.33mld, asadar raportat la PIB da, e 5.1% din PIB, dar nu asta e raportarea pe care vrem s-o facem.

Vrem sa raportam la veniturile bugetare, si asta ne da un deficit de 22%!!!

La o pierdere cash (pentru ca astia sunt bani chiar lipsa din cash-flow) de 22% (“doujdoi la suta”), nicio firma reala n-ar rezista 2 ani consecutivi, si spun asta pentru cand bugetul de stat al Romaniei astepta ca cei 22% sa ajunga chiar spre 25% pentru tot anul, la care se intrevad si anul viitor planuri similar de marete (sper sa nu se concretizeze). Asadar cu privire la titlu… poate sa fie mai mult, doar atata e doar pana acum.

Cum s-a umplut gaura? Putem folosi si pluralul “gaurile” pentru ca e atat de mare.

Pai s-a umplut din bani imprumutati de la FMI/EU in euro/dolari, bani care o data imprumutati trebuie folositi pentru a genera surse regenerabile de cash (subtitrare – infrastructura, infrastructura, infrastructura, educatie, cercetare), si nu arsi in piata mare (subtitrare – dati pe salarii, bonusuri, campanii electorale, spagi, smenuri).

Cum au facut altii ca sa iasa din gaura, dupa ce au umplut-o cu rahat ca noi?

Efectiv persoanele in cauza si-au luat caramizi in gura (vezi Argentina), dar pe termen lung fie o inflatie masiva pentru stimularea exportului in segmentele de baza (fara valoare adaugata semnificativa), fie si-au amintit de subtitrarea de la sursele regenerabile de cash.

Daca macar Argentina si-a propus sa devina un pilon important in agricultura mondiala, care sa fie tinta curenta a Romaniei?

Ce-ti doresc eu tie, dulce Romanie?

Eu iti doresc tie, doar ca Boc sa fie, cu Isa’n cardasie…

I caught a lot of flack from my Republican friends for my post blaming the FY2009 deficit on Bush instead of Obama. Well, I must be a glutton for punishment because I can’t resist jumping (albeit reluctantly) to Obama’s defense again. Foxnews.com posted a story headlined “Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents” and noted that:

President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents — spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history. In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion …That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.

This story was featured on the Drudge Report, so it has received a lot of attention. I’m a big fan of criticizing Obama’s profligacy, but I don’t think it is right to blame him for Bush’s mistakes. At the risk of repeating my earlier post, the 2009 fiscal year began on October 1, 2008, and the vast majority of the spending for that year was the result of Bush Administration policies. Yes, Obama did add to the waste with the so-called stimulus, the omnibus appropriation, the CHIP bill, and the cash-for-clunkers nonsense, but as the chart illustrates, these boondoggles only amounted to just a tiny percentage of the FY2009 total – about $140 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget (supplemental defense spending could boost Obama’s share by another $25 billion, but Bush surely would have asked for at least that much extra spending, so individual readers can adjust the number if they wish).

In other words, Obama’s FY2009 performance is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far more angry with the starting pitcher. That having been said, Obama since that point has been serving up meatballs to the special interests in Washington, so his earned run average may actually wind up being worse than his predecessor’s. He promised change, but it appears that Obama wants to be Bush on steroids.

While perusing the Internet, I saw an article by Iwan Morgan, who is the author of The Age of Deficits: Presidents and unbalanced Budgets from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. The author asserted in this article that, “The deficit explosion on his watch was a nasty surprise for Ronald Reagan not a deliberate strategy to reduce government.  In his rosy interpretation of Laffer curve theory, the personal tax cuts he promoted in 1981 would deliver higher not lower revenues through their boost to economic growth.” The first sentence is an interesting interpretation, since many leftists believe that Reagan deliberately created deficits to make it more difficult for Democrats in Congress to increase spending. I’m agnostic on that issue, but Morgan definitely errs (or is grossly incomplete) in the second sentence. The Reagan Administration did not employ dynamic scoring when predicting the revenue impact of its tax rate reductions. It is true that the White House failed to predict the drop in revenues, particularly in 1982, but that happened because of both the second stage of the 1980-82 double-dip recession and the unexpected drop in inflation (the Congressional Budget Office also failed to predict both of these events, so Reagan’s forecasters were hardly alone in their mistake). Moreover, Morgain’s dismissal of the Laffer Curve is unwarranted. While several GOP politicians exaggerated the relationship between tax rates, taxable income, and tax revenue, this does not mean it does not exist. The table below, which is based on data from the IRS’s Statistics of Income, shows what happened to tax collections from upper-income taxpayers between 1980 and 1988. Supply siders can be criticized for many things, especially their apparent disregard for the importance of limiting the size of government, but the IRS figures clearly show that lower tax rates were followed by more rich people, more taxable income, and more tax revenue. For those keeping score at home, that’s a perfect batting average for supply-side economics.

• James Hamilton and Paul Krugman are having a discussion about the deficit. As an avid reader of Krugman’s NYT blog and Econbrowser, it is really interesting to see the exchange.
• I know we all have it rough, but the recession is especially hard on food banks this year. It is post-Thanksgiving now, but maybe for Christmas, you can give a bit more to charity*.
• There is a massacre occurring in the Philippines right now and the government fears further clan retaliation.
• Michael O’Hare has a really good post over at The Reality-Based Community about paying for higher education.
• Mark Kleiman agreed with Gov Rick Perry regarding a specific application of the death penalty. I found Kleiman’s (and Perry’s) logic pretty flawed. And while I don’t lose sleep over every injustice, blowing one off because it isn’t enough of an injustice is pretty terrible, especially when the injustice cost another human begin their life.

*You can give to anyone, but I’m just recommending Feeding America

Image by Nicola Lopez who has an exhibition currently at the Chazen Museum of Art.

My Flag Flies Everyday

What comes after a trillion? A trillion is one followed by twelve zeros. A smart ass would say a trillion and one comes after a trillion. What I’m asking is what do we call “one” followed by fifteen zeros? Since we base all of our money numbers on ones followed by zeros, it follows that for every thousand of a  number we call it by a special name. For instance start with one followed by three zeros or a thousand, then a thousand thousands, etc. It’s easier to say one, one thousand, one million, one billion, one trillion, etc. What do we call a thousand trillions?

Maybe it is easier to see it this way:

1=one

1000=thousand

1,000,000=million

1,000,000,000=billion

1,000,000,000,000= trillion

Why do we care? Because the Federal Deficit is headed toward that number. It was just a few years ago that a deficit of 500 million was huge, then it progressed to four hundred billion in the GWB era, now it has leapt to twelve trillion almost overnight. Comparatively,  ninety percent of the population will never have a million dollars in their retirement account.

The number one followed by fifteen  zeros is called a quadrillion. I hope we never get to use that number in reference to our deficit. If we do, I’m sure a loaf of bread will cost a thousand dollars.

1,000,000,000,000,000=quadrillion

        12,000,000,000,000=current deficit

Try visiting the National Debt Clock to watch how fast the debt is climbing. Take particular notice of the Gross Domestic Product compared to the debt. They are the same. I see that as “our country is broke.”  I don’t mean that the country is broken, I mean that we are near bankruptcy.

Answer this. Where will we get the money to pay for the new health care reform bill being shoved up our ass?

I couldn’t say it any better, so I just highlighted the salient points.

God Bless

A National Nightmare, Indeed

By David Limbaugh
November 24, 2009

In a Democratic fundraising speech in Iowa over the weekend, Vice President Joe Biden told party loyalists that opponents of the Obama administration’s agenda “should be worried about us, for we are their worst nightmare.” Duh.

Finally we can agree on something, Joe. Even the liberal New York Times reports that at the current level of federal spending, the annual interest on the national debt will exceed $700 billion by 2019 — compared with $202 billion this year. Some forecasters predict it will be much higher. This additional half-trillion dollars a year in interest is more than our current combined expenditures on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh, and the Times isn’t even factoring in the cap-and-trade nightmare you and Barack have in store for us, Joe — you know, that urgent legislation to catapult the nation back into Third World status based on hysteria generated by fraudulent science and corrupt zealots and politicians.

Nor is the Times including in its calculations the additional debt that would result from Obamacare.

Joe, when The New York Times is sounding the warnings over the exploding national debt, you and Barack insist not only on not reversing your disastrous course but also on making it worse. How can reasonable people assume anything other than that you are trying to run this nation into the ground financially?

Don’t dare keep telling us your hyper-ambitious spending is a necessary evil required to deliver us from a financial crisis you inherited. Whatever crisis we face is debt-related, purely and simply. Everything else is manageable. Yet you all are deliberately increasing our indebtedness as far as the eye can see, without the slightest pretense of scaling back in this millennium. In fact, you are laboring to establish further entitlements and institutional changes that would generate exponential burdens on our debt and would be enormously difficult for any responsible and financially sane successor to undo, much less reverse.

Adding insult to injury, you are spending this money not to improve (“stimulate”) the economy — which even the most politically and economically illiterate should now realize — but to restructure American society, dismantle our free enterprise system and impose in its place a command-control economy and political system — in which life’s decisions, including over our private health care, are dictated from Washington.

But while you and Barack are hoisting your wrecking ball, could you please spare us the pseudo-sanctimony and transparent populism in telling us that it will take “grit and determination” to outlast the “special interests” on Wall Street and the insurance industry to pass your destructive agenda?

You both know better. When you have to bribe Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., with a larcenous $300 million addition to your Senate bill (I know, you’re pretending it’s just Harry Reid’s bill) that’s specifically earmarked just for her state — at the expense of the rest of the states and the national interest — something smells to high heaven. You could at least have the decency to admit this provision to raise the bill’s cost by increasing Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” is not even motivated to help Louisiana, but to buy Landrieu’s vote. And you want to talk to us, Joe, about the corruption of special interests?

Special interests, Joe? Is that how you describe 56 percent of the American people, who now oppose Obama’s plan? And that’s without even knowing the half of it. Or maybe you would describe them as dangerous protesters or domestic terrorists?

But, Joe, I do applaud you for your candor in telling your fawning supporters, “I can tell you with absolute certainty: (Barack’s) resolve has never waivered for one instant.”

Bull’s-eye, Joe. You and Barack believe you know better than the American people what is good for them, and you only care what they think to the extent that it makes your job more difficult when they oppose you.

But if you told the truth about your plan — that it would cost dramatically more than you pretend (especially considering that the benefits wouldn’t begin to be paid until 2014 and that taxes would increase almost immediately); that the public option would subsume private care; that the federal government would ration care; that medical choice would be drastically reduced; that you are still trying to secure federal funding for abortion; that you intend to cover currently illegal immigrants; that after all your hype about promoting this bill to achieve universal coverage, millions would remain uninsured and penalized, to boot; that medical quality would be seriously reduced; and that overall costs would increase — your support for the bill would be in the single digits.

So keep chanting it, Joe; you are indeed a national nightmare.

—

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

RealClearPolitics – Damn the Deficit: Full Speed Ahead on Health Care.

Even if you accept the farce that the Health Care plan being forced through Congress this year will be deficit neutral consider the following:

• The CBO assumes 10 years of tax revenue but only 6 years of expenditures
• The Democrats are pushing tax hikes in every imaginable way in order to maintain this illusion, almost a trillion dollars worth of new taxes on top of the expiration of the 2003 Bush tax cuts
• The almost half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts are always ignored and will most likely continue to be ignored by politicians recognizing the political suicide it represents
• The White House estimates of more than $9 trillion in new debt over the next decade assumes annual GDP growth of over 4%. No economist agrees this will happen.

All of this only to maintain the current $1.4 trillion deficit we have now! How will we ever get the deficit back down to the sub-$100 billion we had when last the GOP had control of the purse-strings in 2006?

And this ignores the massive tax increases for cap-and-trade. Can we agree that the rosiest projections possible may not occur? What happens to our deficits then? Is there even another $10 trillion out there looking to buy our debt? I doubt it, I’m certainly not putting my money in treasuries.

There’s just a few things that Democrats are saying that don’t quite make sense.

And quite a bit that I wouldn’t trust them on.

Tyler Cowen gives his view:

Krugman writes: “Belgium is politically weak because of the linguistic divide; Italy is politically weak because it’s Italy. If these countries can run up debts of more than 100 percent of GDP without being destroyed by bond vigilantes, so can we.”

I would interpret this evidence differently.  A high deficit often is an unfavorable symptom of bad politics, even if you think the high deficit is economically OK on its own terms.  It’s a sign that you have dysfunctional institutions and decision-making procedures, as indeed they do in Belgium and Italy.  I believe that the not-always-swift American voter in fact understands high deficits — correctly — in this light.  They don’t hold theories about “crowding out,” rather they sense something in the house must be rotten.  And so they rail against deficits, as do some of their elected representatives.  It’s a more justified reaction than the pure economics alone can illuminate.

When water regularly overflows from your toilet, you want the toilet fixed, whether or not the water is doing harm.

But, I just made the mistake of looking at her Facebook account for the first time and since she doesn’t take comments on her stupid remarks (that could’ve turned into a weeklong project) (and why would she, it is quite obvious the woman doesn’t deal well with criticism) I feel the need to point out one major inconsistency in the two comments I had the stomach to read on her wall. And this is something I would like to scream at most Republicans so I will say it here, in caps, in bold print, in italics, where no one will ever see it’s brilliance in all it’s simplicity.

THE TWO WARS WE ARE FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN HAVE NOT PAID FOR THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE IN FACT COST THIS COUNTRY A LOT OF MONEY. SO WHILE YOU PEOPLE WANT TO STAY THERE UNTIL DOOMSDAY, OR THE RAPTURE, OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL IT, IT IS GOING TO COST MONEY!! THAT MEANS TAXES. TAXES, DAMMIT. YOU CAN’T CUT TAXES WHILE WAGING WARS AND NOT EXPECT A DEFICIT!!! IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PATRIOTISM, OR RUNNING AWAY, IT HAS TO DO WITH GOOD OLD-FASHIONED MATHEMATICS!!!

Thank you for letting me get that off my chest.

The Progressive's Brain is full of Moonbats

The liberal progressive mind is a scary thing. After scamming taxpayers out of $787 billion, Pelosi thinks Americans are her party’s personal piggy-bank and will continue to accept more debt for jobs. That’s why Obama and other Democrooks are holding a “jobs summit” in December. They need to take more money to “save and or create” jobs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Americans could “absorb” higher deficits in exchange for more jobs. Pelosi and her progressive goons passed the stimulus back in January and promised the American taxpayers it would immediately produce jobs. The only items the American Recovery Act produced was waste, fraud, imaginary congressional districts, fuzzy math and Obama’s mythical phrase of “saved or created jobs.”

Progressives will not admit that the stimulus is a complete failure. If it was a success, progressives wouldn’t need that White House “jobs summit.” Obama, Nancy and the progressives are now calling for a second stimulus but refuse to call it a stimulus. On top of that scheme, Nancy and the progressives are going to raise taxes on the purchase and sale of stocks, options, derivatives and futures to “pay” for their newest scam.

Fox News reports:

The California Democrat said on a conference call Tuesday that Americans could “absorb” the hit to the federal budget, and she argued that their biggest complaint is not that the deficit is big — it’s that they’re not seeing any benefit in return for increasing the U.S. debt load. 

“We have to shed any weakness that anybody may have about not wanting to be confrontational on this subject for fear that we’d be labeled not sensitive to the deficit,” Pelosi said, in a recording posted by Think Progress. 

“The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they’re not getting anything for it. … If somebody has the idea that the percentage of GDP of what our national debt is will go up a bit, but they will now — and their neighbors and their children — will have jobs, I think they could absorb that, and then we ride it out and bring money in,” she said. 

“But I think if anybody is asking the public, ‘Would you rather have a job or the percentage of GDP of our national debt would go up a little bit?’ I think that everybody wants a job.”

Pelosi continued the conference call by faking shock about the growing deficit numbers. How can one be shocked when they have control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and it is your party’s spending that grew the deficit? Pelosi and the progressive movement are the ones responsible for the increasing deficit. Since Obama took office, the progressives have been on a spending spree and have treated the American taxpayers as their personal credit cards.

Most common-sense Americans are angry because they were promised change. Americans were also promised jobs. As of now, Americans have received nothing but the bill for these progressive schemes.

If $787 billion caused unemployment to jump up to 10.2 percent and really didn’t save or create any jobs, what will an extra $150 billion produce? Nancy, stop the spending. Destroy every health care bill that is in the House and Senate. Kill the cap-and-trade scheme and any other scheme that will take money out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Last, and most important, stop using American taxpayers are your personal credit card.

This is where the anger resides. The progressive mind isn’t so progressive. It’s strictly regressive and that is why we find ourselves in this mess today…the progressive mind.