Friday, October 8, 2010

Why Is This Woman Laughing?

Because she just made a big joke. "It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance--the biggest bang for the buck." Now how can you grumpy conservatives possibly think that she doesn't have a great sense of humor? Hold on a second. Say what? She wasn't joking? Aw, c'mon, nobody with more than a moron's understanding of economics could possibly say something that stupid seriously.

Turns out she's really serious. The Speaker and representative from the City by the Bay (that wants to take the toys out of McDonald's Happy Meals) was being dead serious. Like Andy Griffith touting "free" healthcare, Pelosi really does believe that money mysteriously appears from the Treasury to solve every problem. You'll be fat and happy and have no need to work because the gummint gonna take care of you. In ancient Rome, I think they called that "bread and circuses."

San Fan Nan's brilliant economic analysis was in response to a comment by former Speaker Newt Gingrich that the November election pits two diametrically-opposite positions against each other, to wit: "The Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks." Harumph! How dare he? It's not easy figuring out which foods you can get legally with those food stamps, and it's a lot of hard work filling out those job search verifications every couple of weeks.

Most tellingly, Pelosi charged Gingrich with conducting class warfare--something the Democrats would never do. "There is some subliminal message that is being sent out there about 'us' and 'them,' meaning people who need food stamps and the rest of the country, which I think is an unfortunate course to go down." I don't know about you, but I'm trying to picture Nancy, sitting at her mahogany dining room table in her many-million dollar mansion in Pacific Heights, waiting patiently for her servants and housekeepers to return from Food-4-Less with the Spam and gummint cheese they're going to serve for dinner. Yes, "we" really are suffering.

Pelosi got some dubious help from the Keynesian economists who back her new math that says "for every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy. Not to be outdone, the geniuses at the Department of Agriculture went her one better and came up with $1.84 for every food stamp dollar given out. Unless they've discovered that food stamps breed dollars in the dark, they have brought "voodoo economics" back into the lexicon, only with an entirely different meaning.

You have to give her some credit, though. The new unemployment figure of 10.1% that the Democrats will carry into the November election means that if nothing else, there will be more food stamps and unemployment checks handed out than at any other point in American history. While Pelosi dances around her cauldron and recites incantations that turn $1.00 into $1.79, maybe she can also recite one that turns 10.1 percent unemployment into the 8% maximum that the Democrats predicted if they took over Congress and the White House. And perhaps she has another one that will turn Obama's statment that the recession is over into something faintly resembling truth. But I doubt it.

25 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

I have always felt that this women was a moron, or at very least, had taken a few many acid tabs back in the halcyon 60's. It might actually be worth a future post, particularly if she loses her plane and speakership, to explore her improbable rise and fall. How could someone this daffy and poor at speaking become "Madame Speaker."

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

The day she turns in the keys for the air plane will be a great day. She will then have to pay for her own flights and alcohol.

I would love to see her have a mental meltdown when she turns it in. :-)

CrisD said...

Already sent money to Denis.

It was worth it just to see the Wizard of Oz commercial.

I think it is a maniacal laugh.

StanH said...

Blithering idiot, perfectly describes the Pelosi. I heard a Barrybot arguing with Stuart Varney, how $1.00 in government spending represents $1.79 in the private sector. The only thing Stuart didn’t do was point and laugh. Breathtaking stupidity, and to think these are the witless twits that have the combination to the vault…sheesh.

scott said...

The blithering idiot keeps showing up in my district to recieve some drummed up award or, as this weekend to try and save some failing Demoncat candidate. I guess these Union fools I live around are as dumb as I thought.

T_Rav said...

That picture was not what I needed to see this morning. Blech.

I can't wait to hear what kind of math she uses the next time she explains how many seats the Democrats will be losing--I mean, winning--next month.

BevfromNYC said...

That is the typical government accounting. For every $1 of tax income, the government spends a $1.84...new math. More tax dollars, more spending, but never at $1 to $1...

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I'd have to write a piece about the mass insanity that hit San Francisco in the 60s and has been getting progressively worse ever since (pun intended). That's not an article--that's a book.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: The MSM will never show us photos of her last gasp as Speaker, but I hope someone captures a secret shot of her at the moment the results show conclusively that the Democrats have lost the House. I would put that photo in the most conspicuous spot in my house, complete with special lighting.

LawHawkRFD said...

ChrisD: My luck. I finally get the gumption to leave San Francisco for good, and they get a Republican candidate who is rattling the witch's tree. I'm missing all the fun. Dennis probably won't get a huge vote in the end, but watching Pelosi try to deflect his jabs (particularly the Oz piece) is a real joy.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: That kind of crazed statement is worthy of a character out of Orwell, or maybe Lewis Carroll. Now that I see the distinct possibility of a big Democratic House loss, I'm starting to get my sense of humor back. I actually had to work to stop laughing long enough to choke out the words "did she really just say that???????"

LawHawkRFD said...

Scott: I regret to say that I can take some pleasure from the fact that if she's getting awards and appearing in your district, she's not showing up in mine. Sorry for the selfish attitude. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: How do you think I feel? I had to find a picture last night to go with the article. That meant going to bed with that image in my mind. Toss, turn, nightmares!

Tam said...

It is going to be fun watching the head explosions on Nov. 2

Writer X said...

I think Newt Gingrich called it perfectly when he labeled the Democratic Party the party of food stamps. Perfect. Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: I'm with you. What's really going to be fun is listening to the Democrats explaining how this was actually a victory for them. It will range from "Republicans lied and stole the election," to "The American people had a temper tantrum (a rehash from '94)." I'll be glued to the TV for several days after this drubbing. I just hope we can take the Senate too, but I'm not holding my breath.

LawHawkRFD said...

WriterX: Maybe we needed Pelosi. Without her, it's unlikely that the Democrats would have been so completely exposed as doctrinaire idiots. She and Reid are the face of the Democratic Congress, and they make great bullseyes.

AndrewPrice said...

The world be a much better place with fewer Pelosis. Sadly, they are a fixture of politics because they're drawn to force their stupid views on the rest of us.

BevfromNYC said...

What happens if the Senate is split 49 to 49 which it is looking more and more like every day? (There are two Independants. Does Biden break the tie for majority?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Sadly, you're so right. There will always be enclaves of perpetual stupidity. Pelosi was predictable as hell in San Francisco, but it took a real confluence of unfortunate events to thrust her onto the national scene. That era is about to end.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Both Independents caucus with the Democrats, but they are not reliable for either major party. But in the event of a tie vote, Biden does indeed cast the deciding vote.

It's not as important that Republicans get the majority in the Senate as it is in the House. Senate procedures, particularly the threat of filibuster, mean that simple majorities are often not enough to pass radical legislation.

In addition, even if the Republicans don't take the majority in the Senate, still there are going to be more moderate to conservative Republican Senators after the election, meaning fewer McCain/Graham type defections.

BevfromNYC said...

Thanks LawHawk: that's what i thought - that Biden would be the spoiler in a split. At least if it's split Gaffin' Joe will have to work for living.

It is hard to find out what exactly is going on in the House elections, but by all accounts, it is swinging to a Repub majority. I think this is why HuffPo is not publishing a daily charts and graphs of the House races like they are for the Senate and Gubernatorial races. They are all but ignoring the House race. BTW, as it stands the Repubs have 210 in the bag to the Demo 186. There are still 39 toss up races. Even if the Repubs get 1/3 (13) of those, they could take majority in the House. (see Realclearpolitics poll),

Anything more than a even split in both Houses (to me) will just be gravy to me. It means it will be almost impossible for the Dems and Obama to ram through any more crazy legislation without a real fight. Of course it will be just that much harder to repeal Obamacare, but let's cross one bridge at a time...

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Let's see how close I get in my prediction for the House. I predict about a 35 vote Republican majority after the election. I'm going to chicken out on the Senate, however, since I don't think we'll get the majority, and I'm not sure how good or how bad the final result will be.

I still see the strong possibility that even with a split Congress, some early dismantling of socialized medicine can begin. I particularly am thinking of the "mandate" to buy insurance which is currently making its way through the courts. Since there is no severability clause in the measure, it would be a smart move by wavering Democrats to vote the mandate out rather than risk having the entire act stricken by the Supreme Court because of that one unconstitutional provision.

BevfromNYC said...

We should have an official contest. Winner (or loser) gets dinner with the Boiler Room Elves!

My unofficial prediction (I reserve the right to update until Nov 2 @8:59pm ET!) -
Gov - 31 R - 19 D's
Senate - 49 R - 49 D - 2 I's
House - 230 R - 215 D's (but there will be too close-to-calls/recounts until January)

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Needless to say, my crystal ball broke a long time ago, but your predictions look pretty solid. I think you may be low on the House, but the rest looks about right. I would probably say the same thing about the Senate as you, but California's too close to call, and I have written Delaware off, which I had in the Republican column a month ago. I hope I'm right on the House and you're right on the Senate.'

Curiosity. Did you count California as a Republican or Democratic gubernatorial win? I think Whitman's going to win by a narrow margin.

Post a Comment