BillsNYC Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Maureen Dowd: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04dowd.html Heard Imus talking about it this morning so went and checked out the article...hits the nail on the head.
John Adams Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 What a stretch--from Obama has his tail between his legs over bad cabinet picks to banks are out of control...with no apparent link between them besides that they are in the same article.
BillsNYC Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 What a stretch--from Obama has his tail between his legs over bad cabinet picks to banks are out of control...with no apparent link between them besides that they are in the same article. Obama, elected saying he will play by the rules, nominates cabinet members who didn't play by the rules Banks, given money expected to play by the rules, blow money on high end parties and jets. Obama not playing by rules wants to give billions to banks not playing by the rules. I'd say there's a huge link there.
BillsNYC Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 Another article, this time from the Right and more biased, but still good read. http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Z...mZiYTJhZDQ5YTY=
Johnny Coli Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Obama, elected saying he will play by the rules, nominates cabinet members who didn't play by the rules Banks, given money expected to play by the rules, blow money on high end parties and jets. Obama not playing by rules wants to give billions to banks not playing by the rules. I'd say there's a huge link there. Point 1: Richardson, Daschle and Killefer won't be in the cabinet, so there really aren't two sets of rules. The Geithner tax mistake was a common one among Americans who work for international organizations, including foreign embassies. Point 2: Yes, the banks getting their bailout money have been stupid. Those Bank's actions after they received the money have nothing to do with Obama, unless you are suggesting the US should take control of the banks, and you don't strike me as a Socialist. Point 3: Obama is actually playing by the rules in his cabinet appointments (see point 1), and wants to give the money to the Banks with the stipulation that they play by the rules. The only link to any of this is that Obama's the President and Maureen Dowd is a hack.
John Adams Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Obama, elected saying he will play by the rules, nominates cabinet members who didn't play by the rules Banks, given money expected to play by the rules, blow money on high end parties and jets. Obama not playing by rules wants to give billions to banks not playing by the rules. I'd say there's a huge link there. The problem with TARP and even the president's bank scolding is this: THERE WERE FEW RULES in the TARP loan. That's not Obama's fualt unless he doesn't fix the TARP requirements, just like it's not Obama's fault that Daschle didn't pay taxes--unless he hires him.
Dan Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 It does suck having a President that admits to making mistakes and says he wants to do better. I hate that. It would be so much better to have a President hide from the Press and not admit to anything good or bad. I wish all our elected officials would just shut up and always assume they're right regardless of the outcome.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I agree he didn't react strongly enough to House Dems out of control. The appointee process is always a mess and the other side always finds ammunition... it sucks but it is true. Sounds like the Dems in the Senate are making progress and I can't wait till Pelosi is removed. She is revealing herself as dumber by the moment.
KD in CA Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 The only link to any of this is that Obama's the President and Maureen Dowd is a hack. Unless she's writting 'Bush sucks' columns for eight years.
VABills Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 It does suck having a President that admits to making mistakes and says he wants to do better. I hate that. It would be so much better to have a President hide from the Press and not admit to anything good or bad. I wish all our elected officials would just shut up and always assume they're right regardless of the outcome. I was listening to WTOP this morning. they were so happy that he admited mistakes, the woman was almost crying for joy over having a Pres ready to admit he messed up. Whatever, do we really want a president to publicly apologize everytime something happens?
Dan Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I was listening to WTOP this morning. they were so happy that he admited mistakes, the woman was almost crying for joy over having a Pres ready to admit he messed up. Whatever, do we really want a president to publicly apologize everytime something happens? I wouldn't go so far as to be crying for joy either. But, it is kinda nice having an elected official admit he made a mistake, apologize for it, and state he's going to try hard to improve. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that and I'm not sure how anyone could. I'd hope everyone could/would own up to their mistakes similarly. Because let's face it, it was a mistake to nominate a couple of those guys. I do agree, though, you don't want a President to continually be apologizing. But, that's mostly because it means he's continually making mistakes not because he looks like a wuss.
blzrul Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I have to tell you- I got clobbered by the IRS last year for unpaid taxes. Turns out my husband got a distribution when his company was bought. The 1099 went to the IRS, but my husband never got his. (He was supposed to have downloaded it from the website, he remember...when prodded.) Next thing you know the IRS is asking for $24k. OUCH! I couldn't figure out what they were talking about - I was looking in my banking records for big deposits etc.... Finally figured it out. Called my accountant in a panic and his response "oh this happens all the time". Filed the amended return, coughed up a couple grand in tax, and that was that. And as I told my husband last night, his stupidity will preclude my ever running for political office. I don't like tax dodgers and I am not defending any of these people but sh-- happens.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Maureen Dowd: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/opinion/04dowd.html Heard Imus talking about it this morning so went and checked out the article...hits the nail on the head. Not really surprised. I am a little surprised that the honeymoon is ending so soon. But I know the media. They will find a way to blame Obama's mistakes on Bush.
Alaska Darin Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 I don't like tax dodgers and I am not defending any of these people but sh-- happens. Mostly because the tax code is far too complex - but that's not going to change because it's now a cottage industry.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 What Obama was apologizing for, if anyone cared to listen, was for sticking by Daschle two days ago, saying he was 100% behind him. That's where he said he made the mistake. It wasn't a mistake for choosing Daschle. But Obama knew it was a mistake to say we're going to overlook the tax issue because Daschle is the best man for the job. That was what he was apologizing for. And he was wrong the first time, for sticking by him, and right to correct it by letting him go. Granted, it was wholly a political move, and he wouldn't have cut ties with Daschle if there wasn't a big political and media stink about it. But ultimately, Obama made the right move not allowing Dashle in the cabinet.
GG Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 So if I read you right, if there was no political stink, there would have been no retraction of the nomination nor the apology? Times, they are a changin or business as usual?
stuckincincy Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Mostly because the tax code is far too complex - but that's not going to change because it's now a cottage industry. True - and it's also one of several that welcomes a departing Congressman with open arms at high pay, usually in an "advisory" capacity or some such. I watched with amusement, the grilling of the auto execs. I'm not going to defend them, but it was clear to me that there were no sniffs of future consideration on the part of that junta that went after them. They know squat about manufacturing, knew they would never get their bed feathered there, and so they proceeded to run roughshod and lay on the insults.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 So if I read you right, if there was no political stink, there would have been no retraction of the nomination nor the apology? Times, they are a changin or business as usual? In this respect, business as usual. But not all things political are bad or evil. A lot of politics is all about appearance, and other people playing politics for or against you. Obama thought (and told people), rightly or wrongly, that the country really needed both Geithner and Daschle. They were clearly, in his mind, the best person on the planet for the job. And the country would be better off with them in their job, even if they had made mistakes. So he was willing to overlook the mistakes and faults to get to the end. It's a calculation. Geithner proved to be okay, in the sense that they could weather the political storm. And at first, that's what he thought about Dashle. And that is where he was wrong, and admitted he was wrong. It wasn't worth it. The backlash was too great. Dashle and Obama wouldn't be able to do as good a job because of the fallout. And he realized, a day too late, that the appearance of Dashle in that job after not paying all his taxes was worse than the benefit of him being the best guy for the job. So, because of politics, Obama has to take a lesser person to fill that role. If there wasn't the poor appearance, he would not have forced the issue, and Dashle would have stayed. The funny part is, the third one, the woman, would have probably kept the appointment if Geithner and Dashle didn't screw up before her. Dashle might even have weathered the storm is Geithner didn't screw up.
VABills Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I thought I heard something on the radio that something new and bigger was just dug up on Geithner and that the sh-- was about to hit the fan there. I didn't catch what it was though.
GG Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 So, because of politics, Obama has to take a lesser person to fill that role. If there wasn't the poor appearance, he would not have forced the issue, and Dashle would have stayed. Which has made his first two weeks already very difficult. Granted you're talking to a guy who didn't buy the change rhetoric. But, the main thing you would hope that Obama would have been able to do is corral Congress and be the driver of the direction of the legislation. But for now, he's a relative non-factor in the activity in the Beltway, as Congress is loading up a disaster of a bill that will do much more harm than good in the short, and definitely in the long term. I supported the initial $700 bn TARP legislation in a mistaken belief that Paulson & Bernanke realized how serious things were would put the money to work ASAP. But at the snail speed that the money was put in action, went to wrong uses, and adding multiple strings, then you are far better off just letting things collapse, because the recovery will be long and much more painful. And through all this, Obama has been silent and invisible as lobbyists are stuffing the bill with perks that have absolutely nothing to do with the economic crisis at hand nor the fixes for it.
Recommended Posts