VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Wants to name a Sachs guy to treasury. WTF, why create rules if you're going to break it every 5 minutes.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Get off it. Mark is a tough guy and doesn't play that game. I trust Patterson more then most folks who have gone back and forth....across the private/public sector line and mind you most people you see on the Hill do. That being said, I am biased, Mark hired me when I worked for Daschle... but he is a true NYer and is one of the few guys on the Hill who is both smart and straight forward. So other then the typical implication and CBS hatchet job CBS is doing, that he worked for Goldman Sachs, know what you are talking about before you make judgments. Patterson will serve us well and I don't see the problem.
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Author Posted January 29, 2009 Get off it. Mark is a tough guy and doesn't play that game. I trust Patterson more then most folks who have gone back and forth....across the private/public sector line and mind you most people you see on the Hill do. That being said, I am biased, Mark hired me when I worked for Daschle... but he is a true NYer and is one of the few guys on the Hill who is both smart and straight forward. So other then the typical implication and CBS hatchet job CBS is doing, that he worked for Goldman Sachs, know what you are talking about before you make judgments. Patterson will serve us well and I don't see the problem. Not an issue with the person, but an issue with the policy and the campaign promise that he has broekn at least twice now in less then a week. This on top of numerous campaign promises that he has "modified" or broken in less than 168 hours.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Not an issue with the person, but an issue with the policy and the campaign promise that he has broekn at least twice now in less then a week. This on top of numerous campaign promises that he has "modified" or broken in less than 168 hours. I am getting older too, are you talking about his promise to change the way Washington does business? If so, yea, that was a whopper, ain't going to happen.... But if you are talking about someone to monitor Guitner, Mark is a good person for the job and will actually understand how to keep him on the straight and narrow.
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Author Posted January 29, 2009 I am getting older too, are you talking about his promise to change the way Washington does business? If so, yea, that was a whopper, ain't going to happen.... But if you are talking about someone to monitor Guitner, Mark is a good person for the job and will actually understand how to keep him on the straight and narrow. Except Guitner was the one who asked for him as a deputy. Friends and all. I don't see much monitoring or public outcry if something happens. And the fact that He is coming from a failure like Sacks leads me to believe his policies are wacked as well.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Except Guitner was the one who asked for him as a deputy. Friends and all. I don't see much monitoring or public outcry if something happens. And the fact that He is coming from a failure like Sacks leads me to believe his policies are wacked as well. I wouldn't make that assumption... More likely he wasn't listened to... however, in DC Mark has more leverage... and I will leave it at that.
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Author Posted January 29, 2009 I wouldn't make that assumption... More likely he wasn't listened to... however, in DC Mark has more leverage... and I will leave it at that. So because you know the guy it's okay to break his rule. Also, Geitner did say it was his friend and asked the Messiah to name him there. Not assuming anything.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 So because you know the guy it's okay to break his rule. Also, Geitner did say it was his friend and asked the Messiah to name him there. Not assuming anything. Do me a favor, what are your specifically refering to when you say Obama is breaking his promise.... Not being sarcastic, I am having a senior moment... if you are stating the wishy washy promise of changing the way Washington does business, big wup, if it is more than that, please refresh my memory.
VABills Posted January 29, 2009 Author Posted January 29, 2009 Do me a favor, what are your specifically refering to when you say Obama is breaking his promise.... Not being sarcastic, I am having a senior moment... if you are stating the wishy washy promise of changing the way Washington does business, big wup, if it is more than that, please refresh my memory. No lobbyists will be allow in government. With credit to CNN since they seem to be the only one reporting it. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...html#cnnSTCText
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Okay, got it... Yep, I hear the problem... interesting though that was probably a stupid promise because a lot of talent has been lobbyists at one time and how is that any different than being a CEO, COS, or CFO of company or interest group, though that person is not directly involved in lobbying??? Also, according to reports Patterson will have to recuse himself from the issue areas he lobbied on behalf of Goldman Sachs. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1233097022...=googlenews_wsj
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 No lobbyists will be allow in government. With credit to CNN since they seem to be the only one reporting it. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...html#cnnSTCText Quit the conspiracy theory for a minute. National Journal, WSJ, CBS had it before CNN.... they were late on the switch.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 Here is the original National Journal article: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/...090124_2562.php
Da Big Man Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Okay, got it... Yep, I hear the problem... interesting though that was probably a stupid promise because a lot of talent has been lobbyists at one time and how is that any different than being a CEO, COS, or CFO of company or interest group, though that person is not directly involved in lobbying??? Also, according to reports Patterson will have to recuse himself from the issue areas he lobbied on behalf of Goldman Sachs. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1233097022...=googlenews_wsj Keep making excuses for your prez douche. Uncover eyes and see the truth for what it is. Yes we did! Fool all of you. Reaping ten fold.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Get off it. Mark is a tough guy and doesn't play that game. I trust Patterson more then most folks who have gone back and forth....across the private/public sector line and mind you most people you see on the Hill do. That being said, I am biased, Mark hired me when I worked for Daschle... but he is a true NYer and is one of the few guys on the Hill who is both smart and straight forward. So other then the typical implication and CBS hatchet job CBS is doing, that he worked for Goldman Sachs, know what you are talking about before you make judgments. Patterson will serve us well and I don't see the problem. Did you work for Daschle while he was cheating on his taxes or did he do that after he left the Senate?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 I have no idea, but FU anyway.
finknottle Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 I have no idea, but FU anyway. We'll help you out here. Daschle wasn't reporting his income after he left the Senate. It shouldn't be that hard. On another note, I see that it turns out that Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg was an active consultant to a lobbying firm specializing in international clientele, but was not registered as a lobbyist or a foreign agent. A statement says he provided 'strategic consulting,' but the matter was not looked into at his confirmation.
blzrul Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 I think Obama should do just like Bush and bring in inexperienced cronies with no knowledge whatsoever of the job they're about to undertake. That was one of Bush's most successful strategies after all - lowering the bar.
IDBillzFan Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I think Obama should do just like Bush and bring in inexperienced cronies with no knowledge whatsoever of the job they're about to undertake. That was one of Bush's most successful strategies after all - lowering the bar. I'm not sure how you see these Obama appointees having to pay up all the taxes they suddenly are embarrassed for having not paid, and not realize how FAST Obama is lowering the bar. After all, isn't paying taxes being "patriotic", according to our new VP? Is Obama intentionally appointing people who are NOT patriotic? (Wait, here comes another "Yeah, but Bush..." response.)
Dan Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I'm not sure how you see these Obama appointees having to pay up all the taxes they suddenly are embarrassed for having not paid, and not realize how FAST Obama is lowering the bar. After all, isn't paying taxes being "patriotic", according to our new VP? Is Obama intentionally appointing people who are NOT patriotic? (Wait, here comes another "Yeah, but Bush..." response.) Here's another thought... maybe these are the "good" guys? That is... the only knock is a little tax evasion. Its gotta be pretty well impossible to hire someone that has worked in DC for more than a few years and hasn't done anything illegal.
Recommended Posts