Seems like he already violated the lobbyist rules before he even signed it today...I guess there are always exceptions to every rule....


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/08/defense.appointments/

Quote :

"Obama's transition office announced that William Lynn, an undersecretary of defense in President Bill Clinton's second term, has been nominated as Defense Secretary Robert Gates' deputy. Lynn is currently a senior vice president at Raytheon, which has billions of dollars in Defense Department contracts and is the maker of the Army's Patriot Missile system and the Tomahawk missile used by the Navy. The company is also developing a global positioning satellite communication system with the Air Force. As deputy secretary, Lynn would be involved in the process of budgeting and acquisitions, in addition to running the day-to-day operations of the Defense Department. Obama's transition office acknowledged that appointing a lobbyist did not, on the face of it, seem in line with the president-elect's ethics stance but that Lynn's qualifications and the recommendations that came from both Republicans and Democrats made him the top candidate."

Also, why is he picking tax dodgers for his cabinet...first the treasury secretary to be and now the Attorney General to be.

1/21/2009 11:30:16 PM

Quote :

"Vietor said Lynn and the transition team would create guidelines that would fit the ethics standards of the new administration."

Looks like you didn't quote the entire article. I know it will make you feel better to see our new president falter so I'll be sure to reference this brilliant thread often.

1/21/2009 11:57:52 PM

Kainen are you sure you're holding Obama to the same standards that you held Bush to when you found out he appointed a high ranking member of a multi-billion dollar defense company to the department of defense?

1/21/2009 11:59:31 PM

Quote :

"acknowledged that appointing a lobbyist did not, on the face of it, seem in line with the president-elect's ethics stance"

uh, wut?

"does not seem", hell.

what "seems" to me, is that it "seems" like he's addressing his lack of military experience by "seeming" to give the entire DoD to the war hawks.

this is disturbing.





[Edited on January 22, 2009 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ]

1/22/2009 12:21:53 AM

not really a good idea

1/22/2009 8:01:19 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-closing-gitmo-year/100days/

time to put on the kid gloves and hope those mean terrorists leave us alone!!!

I have no problem with closing the 'secret prisons.' I have a problem with the statement,

Quote :

""also prohibit the CIA from using coercive interrogation methods.""

tremendously vague. I wonder if the interrogator is allowed to raise his/her voice at the bad men? or will that scare them?

1/22/2009 8:30:44 AM

It's pretty terrible that we needed a president to ban torture.

1/22/2009 9:40:56 AM

Quote :

"Also, why is he picking tax dodgers for his cabinet...first the treasury secretary to be and now the Attorney General to be."

Don't know. Maybe all the wealthy are tax dodgers,depending on how you look at it, and only the wealthy can participate in politics at that level of government?

1/22/2009 9:43:46 AM

Quote :

"Kainen are you sure you're holding Obama to the same standards that you held Bush to when you found out he appointed a high ranking member of a multi-billion dollar defense company to the department of defense?"

Hang on a second, the answer is both yes and no.

YES because these levels are woefully unequal (at this point). According to an Arms Trade Resource Center report, when the Bush administration first took office, it appointed 32 executives, paid consultants, or major shareholders of weapons contractors to top policymaking positions in the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Department of Energy (involved in nuclear weapons development), and the State Department.

Of course let's not forget that includedin that is Dick Cheney and Halliburton. In one year it went from 500 mil in contracts to 3.9 billion to eventually swell to 8 to 18 billion in full options contracts.

and NO because I will yield that this appointment makes me a bit nervous. We can make exceptions here and there but when do they start to waterfall? I hope this guy truly is as great as they make him out to be and worthy of the ethics exception. Similarly, I will hope they draft an acceptable ethics standard like they are saying they will be doing to prevent such bullshit.

We will see what happens, but my point is that you can't say I'm not holding Obama to the same standard when the levels aren't even in the same ball park at this point. Hopefully they never are.

1/22/2009 10:21:45 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/president.tension/index.html


Looks like those tax cuts for the wealthy that Obama railed against his entire campaign get to hang around for a while.

I don't really care, for the record. Hopefully though, and soon, they will roll them back.

1/22/2009 3:09:22 PM

he announced I think back in November or december that he would not repeal the Bush tax cuts until at least 2010, when they expire anyway, because of the receission

1/22/2009 3:32:53 PM

I don't know if this increases or decreases credibility, but apparently he and Michelle enjoy "fisting" each other.

That's TMI in my book, but Fox News wanted us to know this for some reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgtN-CtU_BU

1/25/2009 3:55:55 PM

terrorist fist bump

1/25/2009 4:54:28 PM

1/25/2009 5:11:04 PM

1/26/2009 12:51:36 AM

git you some dawg

1/26/2009 1:50:50 PM

It appears that Tom Daschle has hit a bit of a bump in his bid for HHS leadership.

Back taxes, unpaid until just now...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003793.html

Quote :

"Thomas A. Daschle, nominated to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, did not pay more than $128,000 in taxes over three years, a revelation that poses a potential obstacle to his Senate confirmation. The back taxes, along with $12,000 in interest and penalties, involved unreported consulting fees, questionable charitable contributions, and a car and driver provided by a private equity firm run by entrepreneur and longtime Democratic Party donor Leo J. Hindery Jr., according to a confidential draft report prepared by Senate Finance Committee staff. A spokeswoman for Daschle confirmed last night that he recently paid back taxes in excess of $100,000. She said that Daschle, a former Senate majority leader, and his accountant discovered the error regarding the luxury car service and reported it to the committee after his vetting was completed..."

And according to Politico, income from the health-care industries (it looks like for honorariums in speeches)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18237.html

Quote :

"Tom Daschle, tapped to be President Obama's health czar, was paid more than $200,000 by the health-care industry in the past two years, according to documents obtained by Politico. The former Senate majority leader, who gave speeches to firms and groups with a vested-interest in the administration's upcoming health reform, collected the checks as part of a $5 million windfall after he lost reelection to his South Dakota seat."

I don't know if this enough to cripple any future work he does at HHS or even scuttle his nomination, but it will raise some eyebrows during his nomination, especially since President Obama made clean government a top priority.

1/31/2009 11:58:48 AM

It's embarrassing for Daschle but that's about it. You'd be surprised how many people owe back taxes in this world....it's alot different than EVADING taxes. Still though, embarrassing. Will be forgotten in a week's time.

Using any little scrap to make it seems like it tarnishes Obama's credibility is stupid. Like picking at straws.

1/31/2009 12:02:22 PM

two words for anyone who wants to push minor nit-picky issues about obama appointments

harriet meirs

1/31/2009 1:23:04 PM

Quote :

"I don't really care, for the record. Hopefully though, and soon, they will roll them back"

what exactly is your reasoning for this? you do know the "rich" already pay the VAST majority of the taxes in this country. you also know that the "rich" create most of the jobs for everyone else in the country too right?

1/31/2009 2:51:56 PM

oh noes the rich are going to have a hard time

1/31/2009 3:09:02 PM

^^ The US government is the biggest employer, not "the rich."

And your statement is completely meaningless because a poor person, practically be definition, CAN'T employ anyone else. It's like saying that boats are more important than cars because boats can travel on water. However, if a poor person is able to gain wealth, guess what? They too can be one of "the rich" that can them employ more people.

And the tax rate doesn't have a strong correlation historically with job creation either. Otherwise the record low bush taxes would have been amazingly high job creation, but we all know how that turned out.

1/31/2009 3:41:42 PM

i for one am tired of

Quote :

"RICH GET RICHER"

and wouldn't mind

Quote :

"RICH GET RICHERFUCKED OVER"

1/31/2009 3:58:34 PM

This constant droning on from the right about how the rich create jobs is a bit silly to me because they never want to talk about how those jobs are only created to make the employer richer. They are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts.

1/31/2009 4:18:07 PM

Quote :

"they never want to talk about how those jobs are only created to make the employer richer."

yeah those fucking assholes want to be successful and make money... they should operate at losses so everybody in the world can have everything they desire and we can all be one big happy America and hold hands

1/31/2009 4:24:00 PM

^isnt that what our govt does?

1/31/2009 4:48:37 PM

Quote :

"They are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts."

why should their motivations matter?? Take away their money and/or their incentive to create jobs, and who is left to do this?? Oh.... right, the government. Sounds like an awesome idea!!!

1/31/2009 4:49:09 PM

What I am saying is don't try and make us feel like we should simply roll over and grovel to those poor, overtaxed employers just because they provide jobs.

I love how ^^^ and ^ totally picked snippets of what I said and then took it way out of context thus missing the point completely. Way to fail.

1/31/2009 5:16:21 PM

Quote :

" they never want to talk about how those jobs are only created to make the employer richer. They are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts."

And they employees aren't doing those jobs out of the kindness of their hearts either. They do it for money, just like the employers do. In fact, almost every transaction you have with another person is based around either money or some other form of personal gain. There's nothing evil about that.

1/31/2009 5:37:54 PM

Quote :

"why should their motivations matter?? Take away their money and/or their incentive to create jobs, and who is left to do this?? Oh.... right, the government. Sounds like an awesome idea!!! "

We have not come remotely close in decades to taking away the rich's money. You seem to have bought in to the myth the rich like to push to keep themselves in power with as little work as possible.

^ you're right, wanting money is human nature, and is not evil. But greed, contempt, and apathy are also qualities of human nature that don't somehow magically exclude the very wealthy. The rich don't need to be coddled, and never have needed to be coddled, like so many on the right seem to think. They are not hurting or struggling in any way, and especially in times like these, they are very well insulated from true hardships.

1/31/2009 5:45:20 PM

it's amazing how "socialism" is now defined as rasing the highest tax bracket from 36% to 39%.

Anyone remember what it was like just 30 years ago?


and of course..... can't forget this. gee, i wonder if there's a correlation....

1/31/2009 5:57:32 PM

Quote :

"The US government is the biggest employer, not "the rich." And your statement is completely meaningless because a poor person, practically be definition, CAN'T employ anyone else. It's like saying that boats are more important than cars because boats can travel on water. However, if a poor person is able to gain wealth, guess what? They too can be one of "the rich" that can them employ more people. And the tax rate doesn't have a strong correlation historically with job creation either. Otherwise the record low bush taxes would have been amazingly high job creation, but we all know how that turned out."

I guess you got me. the government does employ more people. however, the government doesnt pay any taxes either so what they do in this regard isnt really relevant.

most people who are classified as poor by almost any definition already dont pay taxes. rich people are the ones who invest and start companies thereby creating jobs. of course poor people dont do that.

you are also conveniently ignoring the relative economic prosperity of the majority of the Bush administration.

1/31/2009 7:41:28 PM

I thought we've gone over this.....
The economic prosperity was based on a fiction. Very few people actually got wealthier over the past 8 years. Sure, lots of people all of a sudden thought they were millionaires around 2006 when the value of their house had doubled and their 401k was booming, but what's happened to all that "wealth" now?

1/31/2009 8:12:21 PM

Quote :

"two words for anyone who wants to push minor nit-picky issues about obama appointments harriet meirs"

yeah but she didnt get appointed, whereas Obamas guys with some major issues...like not paying your taxes....have been confirmed. Kinda points out the double standard dont it

1/31/2009 8:13:36 PM

Daschle paid 150k in back taxes and interest in December after learning he was going to be picked for a cabinet position.....another innocent mistake.

1/31/2009 9:55:03 PM

Quote :

"Very few people actually got wealthier over the past 8 years. Sure, lots of people all of a sudden thought they were millionaires around 2006 when the value of their house had doubled and their 401k was booming, but what's happened to all that "wealth" now?"

why dont you look at GDP, unemployment and other factors generally used to judge a President's economic success, rather than the stock market or real estate values which will always peak and valley? 2 things that have basically nothing to do with W? both of which also have DICK to do with tax cuts.

nice subject change there.

1/31/2009 11:43:24 PM

wait, what?
you want to use GDP and unemployment to argue for Bush's economic success?

ok.... fine






[Edited on February 1, 2009 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2009 11:55:27 PM

umm yes

unemployment trended downwards for the majority of his presidency and the GDP's gains were relatively good. they were no doubt severely impacted at the very end of his term by the credit clusterfuck as indicated on the notes as the last quarter was estimated.

thats not even the point. tax cuts create jobs and end up in GREATER tax revenue for the government. if Obama raises capital gains, logic says people will pull MORE money out of their investments before the law goes into effect, further crippling the stock market. that is clearly why he postponed them. are you really arguing the counter? we keep raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy, they are going to take their dollars and invest them overseas. again, logic.

2/1/2009 1:25:54 AM

yeah yeah, laffer curve, trickle down, blah blah blah
hey - call me when that actually works and a Republican actually shrinks the debt.

2/1/2009 7:19:54 AM

Doesn't Congress have more control over the budget than the President? How about some graphs that compare economic figures with party control of congress instead of President.

2/1/2009 7:31:34 AM

Quote :

"major issues...like not paying your taxes"

lol

so, being woefully unprepared for the lifelong position you're being nominated for is the exact same as an accounting foible


this is why your party pretty much has a monopoly on all things asinine right now, and why you people are grasping at every straw you can imagine

2/1/2009 9:11:44 AM

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/

Quote :

""Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them," Obama's campaign Web site states. "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." But the first bill Obama signed into law as president -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- got no such vetting. "

2/1/2009 12:31:31 PM

Quote :

"a Republican actually shrinks the debt."

I wish.

2/1/2009 3:31:09 PM

Quote :

"But the first bill Obama signed into law as president -- the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- got no such vetting."

Was anybody contesting equal pay??

2/1/2009 9:14:54 PM

lol

probably the kind of people who are making this an issue

2/1/2009 10:28:29 PM

is this stimulus bill getting proper vetting?

2/2/2009 8:28:18 AM

If it goes back to the house because the senate modified it, would you consider that proper? You should be more concerned that the bad bank program is going to get pushed through and the collective asses of the big wigs on Wall Street will have their fiefdoms (and bonuses) saved on the back of taxpayers than any pork that might be funded with this bill.

2/2/2009 8:56:23 AM

if it goes back to the house, then yes I think it would have proper vetting time.

however, why should I be worried about million dollar bonuses, most of which are pre-negociated terms of compensation to individuals years old, when the Dems are throwing around BILLIONS in ridiculous non-essential earmarks? I understand the PR aspect of the bonus thing but it really isnt relevant to the stimulus package in my opinion. I really have no desire for public opinion or government politics to have a say in the compensation of any employee not employed by a government agency. its really none of their business.

2/2/2009 9:18:41 AM

then maybe those companies shouldn't be taking government money, sometimes in amounts well in excess of the market cap of the entire company.

2/2/2009 9:22:06 AM

thats a whole different issue. lots of companies were forced to take TARP money...a last brilliant idea from W to us.

but to play devil's advocate, would it be better for the companies to pay their contractual bonuses, or to default on them and get taken to court by the individuals who are owed said bonuses, which would likely end up costing more in the long run? if a CEO was hired to mitigate losses, fulfilled his duty and saved the company money, should they not be owed the money promised to them? each situation is different and should be treated as such.

lets not play the PR game. we are smarter than that and can look past it. lets not bend over to pick up the pennies while the dollar bills fly over our heads.

2/2/2009 9:44:20 AM