Still hoping for change?

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
John Podesta*- head of the transition team

Tom Daschle - Secretary of Health and Human Services

Eric Holder*- Attorney General

Rahm Emanuel*- Chief of Staff

Bill Richardson*- Commerce Secretary

Hillary Clinton*- Secretary of State

Janet Napolitano* - Homeland Security

Timothy Geithner*- Treasury secretary

*some direct ties to Clinton administration or appointment


When does the change begin? This looks like Bills third term.
 

A.B.Normal

New Member
Might want to Scotch Guard the Oval Office then.

My 2¢
Just because its the same team ,doesn't mean it'll be the same,Management goes a long way to success ,failure or stagnation.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
obamapuppet.jpg
 

2minkey

bootlicker
see, gonz and cerise, now you have a good four years of complaining to do. i'm sure you'll find it satisfying.

*yawn*
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
ABC this morning was reporting that Obama's advisors were telling him to leave Bush's tax cuts for the rich in place for at least the first years.
 

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Barack "All that's missing is the lewinsky" Hussein Obama has surrounded himself with the Clinton goon squad -- the best people to be around when you want to cover up the dirt!
 

nalani

Well-Known Member
I don't see why "change" has to necessarily mean "all completely brand new people on staff". I look at it this way: a school can have exactly the same staff members - teachers, custodians, cooks, etc - but have a new Principal with different ideas and the means to inspire the staff to carry them out .. and you have yourself that 'change'. Might be on a way smaller scale but it's the same premise.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
I don't see why "change" has to necessarily mean "all completely brand new people on staff". I look at it this way: a school can have exactly the same staff members - teachers, custodians, cooks, etc - but have a new Principal with different ideas and the means to inspire the staff to carry them out .. and you have yourself that 'change'. Might be on a way smaller scale but it's the same premise.

yes, that would be a reasonable, sensible approach to viewing this.

but jimmy and cerise ain't into that. their motivations lie elsewhere.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Ah, how fast reality sets in once you stop living in fantasyland.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fact_check_obama_taxes_5


Obama's tax hike for the rich may be delayed
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer – 58 mins ago

WASHINGTON – An economic crisis, rising joblessness and a credit squeeze can make a president-elect refine his words. Today's word is "repeal." During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2011.

It was part of how Obama would pay for an overall net tax cut aimed at low- and middle-income taxpayers, and an effort to bring what he called "fairness" to the tax system.

No one is talking tax hikes now.

Over the weekend, Obama said he has charged his new economic team with devising a plan that would create or preserve 2.5 million jobs over two years. He said the plan would include broad spending plans as well as the middle- and low-income tax cuts he described during the campaign.

Aides later said the plan would not include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on taxpayers who make more than $250,000.

Asked Monday when those hikes might go into effect, Obama said, "Whether that's done through repeal, or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on." (In other words "I don't know." - j)

If repealed early, Obama's tax increase on the rich would have generated significant revenue, but not enough to compensate for the cost of his tax cuts. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center, based on January 2008 income projections, estimated that the increases would result in about $43 billion in revenue in 2009 and $45 billion in 2010. Those numbers would be smaller now, as the economy has lowered expected incomes. (In other words, he doesn't understand the meaning of a changing economy and, during the campaign, he thought everything would remain at the status quo. It didn't. Now it has its teeth firmly dug into his buttocks. - j)

Obama's economic advisers say he will not propose any tax increases in the economic plan he unveils in January. It is to be focused entirely on job creation and economic recovery.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

We saw that comin'. Why didn't you Liberals?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Might want to Scotch Guard the Oval Office then.

My 2¢
Just because its the same team ,doesn't mean it'll be the same,Management goes a long way to success ,failure or stagnation.

Have you ever gone to work at a company and the management staff starts saying things like "Me and Joe, and Bob, and George, and Eddie, etc, etc, etc, used to work at <failed company> before it went tits up."?

The others say "Bob got a job here as <enter management title> and brought us all on."

So here is the same team that worked at <failed company> and here they all are again, in the same positions, doing the same things that brought down <failed company>.

What makes you think that those who have a set agenda in politics will change that agenda any more than Joe, and Bob, and George, and Eddie, etc, etc, etc, who used to work at <failed company> before it went tits up?

Mismanagement is inbred and it never changes unless you change the players. What we have here is the same players. Expect the same level of mismanagement.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
yes, that would be a reasonable, sensible approach to viewing this.

but jimmy and cerise ain't into that. their motivations lie elsewhere.

You knew that change was not in the wind the moment he chose an old-line yellow dog democrat as his running mate, didn't you?

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
If you STILL think there will be change, this from Rahm Emanuel Thiursday or Friday:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. This is an opportunity. What used to be long-term problems -- be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area -- things that we had postponed for too long that were long-term are now immediate and must be dealt with. And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.

In other words, the things we couldn't accomplish in former administrations we can now do with impunity. The only thing that has changed is the year they are in power. The goal remains the same.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Sunday_Reflection_Have_We_Changed_Yet_112308.html

That's how you get Bill Clinton's old White House chief of staff (John Podesta) as the new transition chief. And you get Clinton's old senior adviser (Rahm Emanuel) as the new White House chief of staff.

And you get Clinton's old impeachment lawyer (Greg Craig) as the new White House counsel. And you get Clinton's old deputy attorney general (Eric Holder) as the new attorney general.

So here we are in the third Clinton term looking a whole lot like the Carter second term. I wonder when Obama will make his malaise speech and start telling us to wear sweaters to stay warm.
 
Top