we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States...

[Capitalist]

In her latest stunning declaration, San Francisco socialist Nancy Pelosi told the Steelworkers Union on Monday, that we need to address the disparity in “ownership and equity” in the United States.
Click on Image for Video–

“We’re talking about addressing the disparity of income where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier and some other people are falling out of the middle class when we want to bring many more people into the middle class. But that disparity is not just about wages alone, that disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country,”

 

[daveman]

How much of your vast personal fortune have you given away to those less fortunate, Nancy?

None?

Oh. STFU, then.

 

[editec]

How much of your vast personal fortune have you given away to those less fortunate, Nancy?

None?

Oh. STFU, then.

LOL!

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how many self-identifying liberal SCIONS (read trust-fund check-cashing fellow --but very wealthy-- hippies) I know that I have completely alienated by asking them the same thing, Daveman.

Really given who I am, and what I do for a living (I am a mendicant for a not for profit educational corporation) I am TRULY a damned fool.

But your point is more than valid.

BULLSHIT liberalism is even more annoying to me than over the top converatism.

AL LEAST the heartless conservatives (the Randians, extreme Libertarians and so forth) aren't freaking hypocrites.

 

[topspin]

I'm a little dissapointed that Nancy is not in a fight like reid. Though I will give her credit for building the tea party and helping republicans with this retardation.
Democrats must like being in the minority.

 

[Revere]

Everyone is entitled to "ownership and equity," right?

Liberals' contribution to "ownership and equity" was subprime mortgages.

It only succeeded in ******* homeowners out of both "ownership and equity."

 

[Foxfyre]

Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09 By Kevin Bogardus and Barbra Kim
08/31/10

The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.

While the economy struggled through a recession during much of 2009 and the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, the stock market rebounded, helping lawmakers with large investments. The S&P 500 rose by about 28 percent in 2009. . . .

. . . .The only newcomer to the Top 10 list is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who came straight in at No. 5. He replaced Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), the 10th wealthiest member in 2008. Teague at first fell off the top 50 list after the value of a company he has a stake in — Teaco Energy Services Inc. — fell in value from $39.6 million in 2008 to at the least $1 million in 2009. But he later filed an amendment to his financial disclosure form, now reporting the company was worth at least $25 million. That made him the 12th richest member of Congress in 2009.

There were a few other new faces in the Top 50, including Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who received an inheritance after his late father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), died in 2009.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) also made the list.

Twenty-seven Democrats along with 23 Republicans make up the 50 richest in Congress; 30 House members and 20 senators are on the list. . . .

. . . .Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with a net worth of $160.1 million, is the second-richest member of Congress under The Hill’s formula, even though his wealth declined by more than $4 million in 2009.

He is followed by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who saw her net wealth leap to $152.3 million, a jump of more than $40 million from a year ago.

The rest of the top 10 are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), McCaul, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

To calculate its rankings, The Hill used only the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms that cover the 2009 calendar year. . . ,
Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09 - TheHill.com

Along with this is the fact that U.S. federal employees making up an increasingly bloated bureaucracy are among the highest in the world and enjoy the best benefits and retirement plans to die for. Because of this, this past week Washington DC rents surpassed NYC as the priciest in the nation despite having some of the nation's poorest citizens and some of the nation's crappiest schools.

Does seem to be out o balance doesn't it? Let's support Speaker Pelosi and start dealing with the problem beginning with Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Everyone is entitled to "ownership and equity," right?

Liberals' contribution to "ownership and equity" was subprime mortgages.

It only succeeded in ******* homeowners out of both "ownership and equity."

This was written in 2005. Not only was it prophetic, it also pointed the finger at the source of the policies that you wrongly accredit to liberals. People like you own this debacle, this is the man that you supported.

Bush Profiteering from Housing Defaults by James Bovard

Homeownership is more than just a symbol of the American dream; it is an important part of our way of life. Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership.
In Bush’s eyes, self-reliance is so wonderful that the government should subsidize it.

Bush could be exposing taxpayers to tens of billions of dollars of losses, luring thousands of low- and moderate-income people to the heartbreak of losing their first house, and risking wrecking entire neighborhoods. Bush’s housing initiatives – especially his “American Dream Down Payment Act” to give free down payments to selected home buyers – were key planks in his reelection campaign. He is also pushing Congress to enact a law to permit the feds to give zero-down-payment mortgages.

The Bush “Dream Act” and the zero-down-payment plan are modeled after “down-payment assistance programs” that have proliferated in recent years. These programs, often engineered by nonprofit groups, routinely involve a home builder giving a “gift” to the nonprofit, which provides a home buyer with money for the down payment. The price of the house is sometimes increased by the same amount as the builder’s “gift.” Almost all the mortgages created with down-payment assistance end up being underwritten or guaranteed by either the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Ginnie Mae (the Government National Mortgage Association).

 

[Revere]

Ah, Bush was no conservative. Now there's a headline.

 

[Stephanie]

Friggen Pelsoi has went from Socialist lite to full blown Commie Red.

my gawd people, vote out these commies starting in November.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How much of your vast personal fortune have you given away to those less fortunate, Nancy?

None?

Oh. STFU, then.

I make a 5 figure income and I bet i've donated more of my money to charities than she has. I bet i've also volunteered more of my free time for community services than she has too.


She is an astroturf hypocrite.

 

[daveman]

How much of your vast personal fortune have you given away to those less fortunate, Nancy?

None?

Oh. STFU, then.

LOL!

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how many self-identifying liberal SCIONS (read trust-fund check-cashing fellow --but very wealthy-- hippies) I know that I have completely alienated by asking them the same thing, Daveman.

Really given who I am, and what I do for a living (I am a mendicant for a not for profit educational corporation) I am TRULY a damned fool.

But your point is more than valid.

BULLSHIT liberalism is even more annoying to me than over the top converatism.

AL LEAST the heartless conservatives (the Randians, extreme Libertarians and so forth) aren't freaking hypocrites.

Studies have shown that conservatives consistently give more to charity than liberals.

Note to liberals: Insisting the government take money away from people and give it to others is not evidence of your generosity.

 

[daveman]

How much of your vast personal fortune have you given away to those less fortunate, Nancy?

None?

Oh. STFU, then.

I make a 5 figure income and I bet i've donated more of my money to charities than she has. I bet i've also volunteered more of my free time for community services than she has too.


She is an astroturf hypocrite.

And Pelosi's contributions? The list includes the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art ($36,500) and San Francisco Symphony ($5,600). "But with the exception of an occasional $1,000 contribution to a Boys & Girls Club, little went to the less fortunate," Schweizer, a Stanford professor, writes.​

Read more: RUSH'S NON-LIBERAL LARGESSE - NYPOST.com

 

[blastoff]

She's just trying to help Barry keep his word to Joe the plumber to spread the wealth around.

Idiot lefties can't help it. It's part of their playbook, chapter 1 probably.

 

[kiwiman127]

It seems that many posters hate for Polosi seems to be the topic on this thread. I thought that maybe there would be thoughts about the substance of Pelosi's statement.
Basically Pelosi is addressing the wealth gap in the US which is at a record level. The last couple of times we have reached such a large gap was just prior to the Great Depression and again just prior to the Great Recession (which effects are still lagging around). I can post many, many links that verify that there is a true wealth gap, it's not a fantasy. Facts show that wages, in Real Dollars, have been very flat for the last eight-nine years. As a matter of fact this trend really raised it's ugly head during the recovery from the 2001 recession. The flat wage growth of the working middle class certainly led to the credit crunch that helped spearhead the recession that started in 2007.
Over two-thirds of the US economy is driven by consumer spending. How can the US continue a captialistic consumer driven economy when the middle class is losing wealth? Wealth has redistributed upwards and thus the great gap in wealth. It's no wonder that the US has experienced it's two largest economic downturns when the wealth gap has reached it's apex. It only makes economic sense.
Now, I'm no lover of Nanvy Pelosi, but I'm glad she made her comment. It is something that needs to be addressed. The big question is how does the US turn this probllem around?

 

[Capitalist]

It is something that needs to be addressed.

If by "addressed" you mean more central planning, I would disagree.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I think every time a moron like Pelosi says stupid shit like this, she should be forced to give a homeless person $100,000.00. That'll shut her up. Less than two more weeks and we should be hearing less and less from this dope.

 

[saveliberty]

Government "fairness" = how may we tax you?

 

[kiwiman127]

It is something that needs to be addressed.

If by "addressed" you mean more central planning, I would disagree.

===================
Could you be more specific?
I'm not pointing at the dreaded "socialism", but there must be an approach that would reverse this trend. Currently we are heading towards plutocracy and as I pointed out, this would eventually destroy the US economy.
The problem that has risen is that many companies have stopped the ole "a fair days pay for a fair day's work" standard and have directed those monies towards exec pay and larger dividends. Thus flat wages, even in enviroments when there is high worker productivity and good profits. This has been evident since the 2001 recession.
How does this trend get reversed?

 

[saveliberty]

It is something that needs to be addressed.

If by "addressed" you mean more central planning, I would disagree.

===================
Could you be more specific?
I'm not pointing at the dreaded "socialism", but there must be an approach that would reverse this trend. Currently we are heading towards plutocracy and as I pointed out, this would eventually destroy the US economy.
The problem that has risen is that many companies have stopped the ole "a fair days pay for a fair day's work" standard and have directed those monies towards exec pay and larger dividends. Thus flat wages, even in enviroments when there is high worker productivity and good profits. This has been evident since the 2001 recession.
How does this trend get reversed?

It is called capitalism. Supply and demand eventually create an equilibrium that fairly distributes goods, services and even income. Keep your damn government hands off!

 

[topspin]

If we could get the tea party to adopt republican economics with democrat social freedoms we'd be good to go with a full fledge third party.