/dev/null Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Brought to you by the Most Ethical Congress Ever© http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/o...-closed-public/
DC Tom Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 ...staff members holding clipboards with lists of approved attendees. Reporters with press badges were able to get in. I wonder how many were from Fox?
IDBillzFan Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 When he kept talking about all the change he was going to bring, I had no idea he was specifically referring to his mind. Oh, well.
Magox Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Now that is "Change you can believe in". In other words, when he was talking about being transparent, he meant transparent within his own political caucus.
DC Tom Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Realistically, though, he can't make Congress open their hearings. Although equally realistically, he could verbally beat the **** out of them in the court of public opinion if he wanted to. The bottom line, though, is that his "transparency" campaign promises were just that - campaign promises. There is far too much bureaucratic inertia at play in the federal government for any one person to realistically effect change.
Magox Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Realistically, though, he can't make Congress open their hearings. Although equally realistically, he could verbally beat the **** out of them in the court of public opinion if he wanted to. The bottom line, though, is that his "transparency" campaign promises were just that - campaign promises. There is far too much bureaucratic inertia at play in the federal government for any one person to realistically effect change. That is true, but there is going to be alot of ammunition to be fired upon him and others within his party that all went on the mantra of "change", "hope" and "politics as usual". It's gonna be fun to watch
GG Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I laughed out loud when I read the following quote by good ol Charlie Rangel yesterday about a bill that's designed to limit off shore tax heavens and get more people to pay US taxes: "This bill offers foreign banks a simple choice -- if you wish to access our capital markets, you have to report on U.S. account holders" Shouldn't you start enforcement inside the Beltway first?
DC Tom Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 That is true, but there is going to be alot of ammunition to be fired upon him and others within his party that all went on the mantra of "change", "hope" and "politics as usual". It's gonna be fun to watch Yes, and he should get flack - for the bull **** campaign promise of "change" and "transparency". But not when Pelosi effectively tells the Americna people "Transparency is not in your best interests...trust us."
DC Tom Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I laughed out loud when I read the following quote by good ol Charlie Rangel yesterday about a bill that's designed to limit off shore tax heavens and get more people to pay US taxes: "This bill offers foreign banks a simple choice -- if you wish to access our capital markets, you have to report on U.S. account holders" Shouldn't you start enforcement inside the Beltway first? So Chuck's going to balance the budget, then? Because as long as Congress keeps running a budget deficit, the US government needs foreign banks participating in our capital markets a hell of a lot more than they need us. On the other hand...this is one more example of this government's "Creditors don't have rights, only debtors do" policy that started with the anal rape of GM bondholders. Good luck selling that to the Chinese though, Chuck.
Recommended Posts