Why trust him?
Matthew D. Mercer
Monday, January 26, 2009
LET ME make sure I understand this. Mr. Geithner, nominee for treasury secretary, got caught cheating on his taxes. Yet instead of going to jail, or any kind of serious punishment, he’s going to be the treasury secretary.
If Geithner had been a Bush appointment the Dems would be screaming. My only concern is how can we trust this guy. No, change that — Why should we trust this guy? Watching him on TV, Geithner comes off as arrogant. Can America really afford this guy talking to the president?
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
Well, a cock-eyed optimist might hope that this means if you or I foul up our taxes, "why that'll be just fine...heck, a simple ol' mistake, and well, I was kinda busy and just forgot to file, and that pesky computer program was flawed and then...uh, then...then I think the dog ate my tax return! Oh well..."
But don't count on it.
Same game, different players...these folks, from the prez on down, breathe rarified air. The rest of us schmucks will just keep on working so that they can draw their salaries. Until the nation gets a belly full and takes the government back from the hacks and crooks that run it now.
January 26, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
At no other time in our history, under no other administration, would this white collar bureaucrat elitist liar have had even a remote chance of being confirmed as Treasury Secretary. Our government is rapidly becoming as inept and corrupt as the worst third world country.
January 26, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
That's what happens with one-party rule, such as we have now. Americans, you voted for it, you got it.
January 26, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Someone explain to me how Barney Frank won re-election so easily with the economic meltdown, and his ignorance and/or lies about Fannie & Freddie.
Oh, I forgot. All Bush's fault. That's right.
January 26, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Same old dance, different partner. I would take the time to point out again that the community organizer, Obama's main accomplishment was that he had worked for ACORN, giving classes on how to pressure banks to make bad loans. That is the accomplishment that propelled him to Senator. What does that say for us? On the other hand, Mr. Obama probably didn't have a whole lot to choose from. A lot of his friends and associates, and aquaintances were of the same ilk. Look at Ilinois' governor.
January 26, 2009 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Talk to me in 4 years, if things are no better or worse then they are now I'll hop right on the bandwagon with you, till then lets see what the Dems do, Bush's cabinet did not have any skeleton's in it's closet either, oh wait............
January 26, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"That's what happens with one-party rule, such as we have now. Americans, you voted for it, you got it."
And just how did it get that way exactly if the Republicans did such a bang up job and had everything figured out.
Republican Congress 1992-2006
Republican President 2000-2008
They held the cards, they failed to do what they stand for, why should they not have been voted out? Is that not what we are supposed to do when a party does not follow its motto?
January 26, 2009 at 11:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government."
Mark Twain
We will see only one party in this country when the media destroys the Republican party and people aren't smart enough to know there are other parties besides the far left Democrats. One party does not a Democracy make.
January 26, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, first, a few corrections for ya.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/hist...
First of all, if was the 1994 elections, not 1992, when Republicans gained the majority in the House and Senate (which means 1995 when they took office) (and Dems were the majority in both houses before that). and the most Repubs in the House during any of those years was 230, nowhere near the 256 Dems we have now. The largest GOP majority in the House during Bush's tenure was 30, compared to today's spread of 78.
During that same span, during Clinton's tenure, the Senate was 52, 55, and 55 GOP. But when Bush took office in 2001, it was 50/50, (of course the vice-president is the tie-breaker, which gave the GOP the slimmest of majorities), then it went to 51, then 55 till 2007, when it once again became an even split 49/49, with 1 Democratic Indy, (effectively making it a Dem Congress), and are currently at 59-41, depending on Minnesota.
So, my point is, when I say 1-party rule, I mean BOTH houses of Congress AND the presidency. Which happened only during Bush's first 6 years, not the range you state, and only by a tie-breaker for some of those years. I was referring to near-filibuster proof majorities, which we have now, and never came close to during those 6 years. There's always a few (well, most times) that cross the aisle, so when the chambers are pretty close in number, lots of compromises get made, but the larger the spread, the less compromising seems to happen....
On the other hand, I agree, and have stated here often, that the Repubs had it and screwed it up. And they are getting what they deserve now. I have stated that repeatedly on here, so I obviously do not believe they have all the answers or did a bang-up job. And I have absolutely no problem pointing that out. However, goodoleboy, you may like to claim to be independent & in the middle, but when you make statements like "your precious Republicans", as you did recently, is that a bit of your true colors showing thru? Personally, I don't think precious and politicians of ANY party should be used in the same sentence - LOL
January 27, 2009 at 12:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )