Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (295878)	3/10/2009 1:38:17 PM
From: Bill	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

I didn't see a great divide by the experts. Paul Krugman, more politician than economist, supported it. Maybe a couple others. That's no surprise. The Congressional Budget Office and about 200 economists who ran ads in major newspapers came down on the other side. Read the bill and tell me how 75% of the stuff is going to stimulate the economy. It's not.

To: Rambi who wrote (295878)	3/10/2009 2:02:51 PM
From: MrLucky	7 Recommendations Respond to of 793912

...and the climate is such now that people are really being investigated much more in depth... No Rambi. The republicans can not hold a candle to your party. Remember the two airplanes full of obama campaign lawyers that flew to Alaska? Remember the immediate and concentrated look at Joe the Plumber? The republicans are learning, and may some day, be on a par with the democrats. What bugged me was that after it was known, there was the peculiar reasoning put forth that someone was just so qualified and the best blah blah, that his transgressions could be, SHOULD be overlooked. I agree with you fully. Fire those that improperly vet the candidates. Dump those candidates who are not fully and completely qualified in every respect. No one, especially someone like Geithner is "too big too fail". What a load of crap!! This should be applicable to either party. But, we must remember that Obama promised no lobbyists, transparency in his administration and a complete change from Washington "business as usual". He has not only failed to deliver on those promises, but has knowingly broken them. You and a couple others on this thread have commented that it is too early to judge him harshly. My questions are: How much time should he be allowed? How many mistakes or broken promises should be tolerated? To put it into a sports metaphor. As our quarterback, how many intercepted passes should Obama be allowed to throw before the fans show some anger, some disappointment and a demand for change in his play calling?

To: Rambi who wrote (295878)	3/10/2009 4:52:18 PM
From: Alan Smithee	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793912

Yeah, I agree about the tax cheats, although I think those are found on both sides and no one really knows it until an investigation- and the climate is such now that people are really being investigated much more in depth. What bugged me was that after it was known, there was the peculiar reasoning put forth that someone was just so qualified and the best blah blah, that his transgressions could be, SHOULD be overlooked. What garbage. Particularly ironic, isn't it, that Timothy Geithner is now in charge of the IRS. Our tax system is based on, and depends on, voluntary compliance. I expect there will be a drop in voluntary compliance with the tax laws as some people say, "hey, the boss of the IRS cheated on his taxes, why not me?"