Not content with showing her idiocy by confusing the First and Second Amendments, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) doubled-down on “Fox News Sunday” this morning, when she said it is a false argument to say we have a spending problem.

Twice.

Because, delusional? Or, you know, a liar. Twitter users are slack-jawed over her idiocy. But, they aren’t speechless and let her have it as only they can.

https://twitter.com/i88schwartz/status/300613126984970240

Nancy Pelosi then took to Twitter to continue offering proof of her own idiocy.

Zing!

She then posted her appearance on “Fox News Sunday!” As if it was a good one!

These Twitter users put it in a nutshell.

Bingo.

Update:

Precisely.

  • Frank Smiles

    Remember the Pelosi gaffes as you age. Please God, give me the grace to disappear before I become an embarassment to myself when I am old and goofy. Or at least let me be silent and only have people wonder if I am a fool instead of opening my mouth and removing all doubt. But she faithfully toes the party line, so her liberal left San Francisco constituents will do everything they can to keep her in office.

  • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

    Why does NO interviewer ever press the issue about Baseline Budgeting? If we’d just stop making automatic spending increases across the board it would be a good start. Federal Agencies not only don’t have to justify their increases each year, they have almost ZERO incentive to cut costs or find cheaper ways of doing bidness.

    • R0nin

      Worse, they have every incentive to spend more money each year. If they don’t spend every dollar that was budgeted, then they’re demonstrating they don’t really need it all, and next year’s budget might be reduced. Can’t have that, especially when it’s not their own money they’re spending.

  • jimbo96

    Pelosi by herself does not have a “spending problem” because she’s the one doing the spending and for her that’s not a problem. It’s not a problem to her because she doesn’t have to pay it back, but for everyone else who does, it is. She doesn’t give a rats ass about anybody else but her, and this once again proves it…

  • Frank Smiles

    The real problem seems to be that the DC crowd enjoys life too much on both sides of the aisle to step up and start doing right by US citizens. Visited DC recently. Lamborghinis and other exotics are selling like hotcakes in Georgetown, their housing values NEVER dropped like the rest of our nation (check Zillow or Trulia) and everyone is living high off the hog in the Capitol while the rest of us worry about tomorow. You would never know the nation is in trouble by the state of things in DC. Elected officials are allowed to practice investment trading just before or after major votes, and are virtually immune from prosecution. Then, towards the end of their terms, they quietly join major corporate boards while they wait for the lobbying restrictions to expire. They play the $$ game for corp donors while in office, and then really cash in upon ‘retiring’ when they use their relationships to lobby because they can roam the Capitol halls freely and open doors for friends. Many politicians are simply all too hooked on the wealth potential to buck the trend. It is a sad, selfish mess in the Nation’s capitol. And we citizens pick up the tab. The GOP will never really take the likes of Harry Reid to task for his budget failures until they clean up their own act first, and Reid, Pelosi and Obama simply exploit this weakness while it exists. Until a group of politicians are honest enough to change this decadent status quo, America will continue to slip away from what we used to be – a nation of greatness, self worth, and unity.

    • http://twitter.com/who_me_too RadicalRebelWhoMeToo

      So much truth in your post Frank. Now I’m going to go drink heavily for the next 3 hours. (:^(

    • Gallatin

      I totally agree the power structure that is Washington DC must be changed. The number of Representatives in the House must increase with population as the Founding Fathers intended. Then eliminate their DC offices, make them work from their districts. With today’s technology there is no reason the Representatives in the “People’s” house need to be working in DC. As I posted earlier in Twitchy:

      The Constitution of the Untied States of America, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:

      “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the
      several States which may be included within this Union, according to
      their respective Numbers,”

      “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000,”

      The number of Representatives was first set at 435 after the 1910
      census in 1913. The same year that gave us the income tax and the
      Federal Reserve.

      The number of Representatives was permanently fixed at 435 in 1929,
      although it increased briefly to 437 in 1959 after Alaska and Hawaii
      became states. The number of Representatives has not changed with
      population growth since 1929; although it had with each census up until
      1913. If we take the number above, 30,000, that means the House of
      Representatives should have approximately 10,000 members.

      What many people don’t know was that there was originally 12 Articles
      to the Bill of Rights. The original Article 1 dealt with the size of
      the House of Representatives, one Representative for every 50,000,
      meaning there should be approximately 6000 Representatives today.
      Unfortunately there was an error in its language so the States never
      ratified it.

      Increasing the number of Representatives would go a long way in breaking the power of entrenched incumbency.

      The House of Representatives is the “People’s House”; 435 individuals
      cannot adequately represent the People. The House of Representatives
      MUST GROW in size.

      In fact my Representative does not represent me and my viewpoints, therefore I am being taxed without representation.

      For much more on this topic go to the website, http://www.thirty-thousand.org.

      It’s time to take back our House from the elitists, lobbyists, and special interests.

      • TN05

        If you think more politicians is the answer to our problems, you are incorrect. We do not need 6,000 representatives.

        • Gallatin

          Yes we do. 435 Representatives for 300 million people is a travesty. Limiting the number of Representatives has created all the problems that we hate; cronyism, powerful lobbyists, special interests, Representatives that don’t answer to the people but to whomever can bring them the most cash.

          Think of what can be accomplished by increasing the size of the House and have them work out of their district offices. We “ordinary” Americans that they say they care so much about would have the access that is our right. Think of all the lobbyists that would have to travel to 6000 offices in 6000 places to get what they want rather than 435 offices in one place.

          I know the initial reaction is more politicians– ugh. I don’t view it as more politicians but more representation.

          • TN05

            No other country in the world has 6,000 representatives… The entire European Parliament has only 754 MEPs, and India’s (the largest) only has 790 combined in both houses. Increasing Congress’ size doesn’t increase representation, it dilutes it so your representative has no actual power as any policy he proposes would require an additional 3,000 supporters who really couldn’t give a crap about your local issues.

            Additionally, it removes the central aspect of a republic – people coming together to make policy. You can’t fit 6,000 people is a building of decent size, so they would necessarily be elsewhere. Floor arguments from either side would be pointless, since there would be no time to make them, no place to make them, and no point in doing so since you won’t actually swing any votes. Voting would be delayed significantly because parties/coalitions would have to check with at least 3,000 representatives to determine their opinion and possible vote. Compromise would be impossible because it is hard enough to get 218 people to agree on something, let alone 3,001. Basic parliamentary procedure would be practically impossible. No policy would ever be passed and all you gain is a representative who has little actual power in an of himself. The solution to our problems is not to stick 6,000 people in a room and expect them to agree on something, because odds are they won’t.

            Quite frankly local issues belong in the state legislature, county government, and city councils, not Congress. Those are the most representative because they focus on statewide, not national, issues.

          • Gallatin

            You assume that I want them to get anything done. I don’t think the Founding Fathers wanted them to get anything done either. There is nothing that makes me want to puke more than hearing; “bipartisanship”, “compromise”, “reach across the aisle” , ” work together to get things done”.

            I love partisanship, gridlock, fighting and I think the Founding Fathers did too, thus more Representatives is the answer.

            Let me pose the question to you a different way, do you think there should be fewer so they can get things done?

          • TN05

            If Congress is incapable of doing anything, there is no point in having it. I think you’ve pretty much proven you don’t care about representatives being closer to their citizens or to you, you just don’t want Congress to be able to do anything. I find that really disingenuous.

          • Gallatin

            1. Doing nothing is doing something.
            2. If the doing involves cutting taxes, spending and regulations I’m all for it.
            3. If the doing involves more taxation, more spending, and more regulations then I’m opposed to the doing.
            5. You’re right why do we need representatives? Why can’t I represent myself? I’m sure I can do better than what is currently in DC.
            6. Last but not least you didn’t answer the question posed to you, do you think less is better?

          • TN05

            No other country in the world has 6,000 representatives… The entire European Parliament has only 754 MEPs, and India’s (the largest) only has 790 combined in both houses. Increasing Congress’ size doesn’t increase representation, it dilutes it so your representative has no actual power as any policy he proposes would require an additional 3,000 supporters who really couldn’t give a crap about your local issues.

            Additionally, it removes the central aspect of a republic – people coming together to make policy. You can’t fit 6,000 people is a building of decent size, so they would necessarily be elsewhere. Floor arguments from either side would be pointless, since there would be no time to make them, no place to make them, and no point in doing so since you won’t actually swing any votes. Voting would be delayed significantly because parties/coalitions would have to check with at least 3,000 representatives to determine their opinion and possible vote. Compromise would be impossible because it is hard enough to get 218 people to agree on something, let alone 3,001. Basic parliamentary procedure would be practically impossible. No policy would ever be passed and all you gain is a representative who has little actual power in an of himself. The solution to our problems is not to stick 6,000 people in a room and expect them to agree on something, because odds are they won’t.

            Quite frankly local issues belong in the state legislature, county government, and city councils, not Congress. Those are the most representative because they focus on statewide, not national, issues.

      • Catchance

        Although your data makes sense, I shudder at the thought of having more than the 435 House reps we now have. I sincerely doubt that those extra 5,565 representatives would actually be representative of our viewpoints.

        • Gallatin

          They would if they had to operate in their district offices rather than in Washington. Does 435 Representatives that have an average staff size of 15+ make sense?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1538376219 Stacey Holmdahl

          Also, the reps would then serve a smaller area, so you might get a rep that actually shared your values. The cost of this would concern me, but I think we should cut salaries and perks of these peeps anyway, and I like the idea of them staying in their home areas. THey can teleconference.

          • Catchance

            As I said, it makes sense… BUT… the idea of that many more just gives me the willies. They already have a ‘them vs us’ mentality.

            I have to laugh at the idea of a teleconference. If they play chess and solitaire now, what do you think they’d be doing while on a teleconference? But perhaps they could outsource to India. Ha.

          • Catchance

            As I said, it makes sense… BUT… the idea of that many more just gives me the willies. They already have a ‘them vs us’ mentality.

            I have to laugh at the idea of a teleconference. If they play chess and solitaire now, what do you think they’d be doing while on a teleconference? But perhaps they could outsource to India. Ha.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1538376219 Stacey Holmdahl

          Also, the reps would then serve a smaller area, so you might get a rep that actually shared your values. The cost of this would concern me, but I think we should cut salaries and perks of these peeps anyway, and I like the idea of them staying in their home areas. THey can teleconference.

  • R0nin

    Spoken like a true addict, Pelosi. A spending addict.

  • http://twitter.com/who_me_too RadicalRebelWhoMeToo

    And then .@NancyPelosi ACTUALLY posts interview which OBVIOUSLY shows she has been smoking CRACK for some time. #SoMuchFAIL

    • Catchance

      Okay, that had me guffawing out loud.

  • TN05

    I have to give her props for going on FOX. Not too many liberal Democrat leaders, let alone liberal Democrats, will go on. Too bad Obummer and Reid won’t go on.

    • Joe W.

      I wouldn’t give her “props” for learning how to wipe her own butt. The woman is a vile miscreant who is wasting our oxygen.

      • TN05

        I wouldn’t either, but credit needs to be given where it is due – she went on Fox News. It just so happens she demonstrated why liberals don’t go on, which is that their logic sucks and they can’t answer questions or give good answers.

  • Steve_J

    She does have a point. Spending is never a problem, it’s paying off the debt that piles up from the spending that’s the problem.

  • TocksNedlog

    “The deficit and debt are at immoral levels and must be reduced in ways that don’t hurt our nation.”
    — Stop taking our money, and stop spending both it and money that we do not have. Simple, straightforward, right.
    But, of course, she will not do that, in large part because of her (apparently) sincere conviction that government spending drives economic growth. It seems that us producers and consumers cannot be trusted to spend & invest our own money . . . SanFranGranNanny must do it for us.

    • grais

      Yeah, the deficit and debt reached immoral levels by something other than overspending.

      And she’s never had any ‘work’ done on that face.

  • Guest

    Comrade Pelsoi’s net worth grew 62% in 2010, as the rest of the country suffered,
    SHE does not have a spending problem.

  • Gallatin

    Amanda Carpenter
    @amandacarpenter
    Wallace asks her why she can’t find $85B to cut. She insists cuts must
    be balanced with “eliminating subsidies for Big Oil?” Is this 2006?

    I’m okay with cutting subsidies to “big oil”, however I want something in return starting with nancy pelosi. Every sitting Senator and Representative should be required to release their investment portfolios. All subsidies to any company in those portfolios should be eliminated along with those to “big oil”.

  • $23629333

    With the long nose, Nancy Pelosi looks like Anthony Weiner in drag.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZR4D5E2WTOI4MSKK7AJS6EG3OA Everybodys All American

    California. Please take this as a sign that the former speaker is delusional and needs to be replaced asap.

  • poljunkie♪

    Where’s the budget Nancy? It’s been an entire Presidential term.

  • ceemack

    I can see it now…Nanzi Pelosi’s family take her to a restaurant, and a party nearby asks to be moved farther away because “special needs people need to be special somewhere else.”

    To which the waiter replies “Damn, you’re not kidding! Dessert’s on the house.”

  • frediano

    She really needs to be playing Bingo in a home somewhere. Somebody call the bus.

  • frediano

    Current and former #1 willing holder of US Treasury Debt: SS Trust Fund. No more. SS is newly a long term beggar at Treasury, no longer in the willing debt holder market. So when idiots like Pelosi blithely raise the debt ceiling with the stroke of a pen, not only must fresh, new willing debt holders be found, but we must replace the former #1 willing holder of existing US Treasury debt. This babe is an idiot. When 10 yr Treasury bonds go from 1.43 to 2.04%, that is ‘only’ 0.6%….but it is also a 42% increase in debt service. That is the nature of the current Wreck on Rails. When our crack addicition on public debt gets hammered by even slightly increased interest rates, it is going to represent a massive increase in debt service, and will overcome the federal budget.

    Who doesn’t know this? It requires a Jr. high grasp of math. Clearly, this deer in the headlights babe doesn’t have that.

  • Frustrated Teacher

    The biggest problem is that Nancy (and friends) see NO problems with the spending in Washington. I would bet most of them have NEVER had to balance a checkbook or live on a budget like the rest of us do in the Obameconomy!

  • CatHerder

    It’s true! They don’t have a spending problem, they have a STOP spending problem!

  • J.N. Ashby

    If you spend more money than you take in you don’t have a spending problem. You have a priorities problem. You place too much priority on spending more money than you have.

  • Raye09

    We need stricter term limits, these people should not be allowed to stay in office until they are senile.

  • Catchance

    Remember, Nancy Pelosi is the one who famously said that food stamps and unemployment benefits both stimulate the economy and are the biggest bang for the buck. Yup, you just can’t fix stupid.

  • nc

    Remember that old joke, “How can I be broke if I still have checks in my checkbook?” It’s not funny anymore.

  • Maxx

    “We don’t have a spending problem?” You’re right. WE don’t have a spending problem but YOU sure as hell do.

  • lainer51

    Hey Aunt Nancy – The HOME called, they are on their way!!!!!!!!!!!

  • lainer51

    Hey Aunt Nancy – The HOME called, they are on their way!!!!!!!!!!!

  • maybetoday777

    Nancy Pelosi, another sprinkled, confirmed Roman Catholic IDIOT. Nothing new here.

    • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

      Most democrats need to be excommunicated. You can’t be liberal and Roman Catholic. It doesn’t make sense to me and seems totally contradictory.

  • maybetoday777

    Nancy Pelosi, another sprinkled, confirmed Roman Catholic IDIOT. Nothing new here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

    Wait. What?! Did she say at the very end, we have a “budget deficit problem”? Shame the video kinda cut-off there but that is what I heard. Yes, lack of taxpayer dollars to spend erroneously, is clearly the problem.

  • rant stocks

    Let’s make this simple we have a DEVIL and a SHEDEVIL in washington…nuff said.

  • bicentennialguy

    This Pelosi creature keeps crawling up from the depths of hell to torment humanity.

  • http://twitter.com/TruPundit BristolGOP Backup

    Melissia had it right in her tweet. She beat me to it.

  • Noonespecial

    Her picture is next to “CRAZY” in the Webster’s Dictionary.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004785969670 Hal Burton

    They still haven’t told her she’s doesn’t run the House of Representatives anymore? I’d have thought the downgrade in planes would have been a clue.