'As many as a third of potential [Obama] nominees were found to have had some tax questions to answer.'

Another one for the "what is this doing in the back of the paper?" file:

    Former Fed chief Paul Volcker last week called the personnel situation at the Treasury Department "shameful."

    "The secretary of the Treasury is sitting there without a deputy, without any undersecretaries, without any, as far as I know, assistant secretaries," Volcker said, "at a time of very severe crisis."

    President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, asked by a reporter for comment, said he "wouldn't quite agree with everything that our friend Mr. Volcker said," adding: "I don't think that the secretary is alone at the Treasury Department. I think there are many able people assisting him."

    Maybe so, but Secretary Timothy F. Geithner still does not have a deputy or Senate-confirmed undersecretaries or assistant secretaries to help him. And it's not because the Senate has been going at its traditional, snail-like pace confirming people. (That will be, as sure as night follows day, a problem down the road.) The fact is, the White House has sent no nominations to the Senate for any of those positions.

    And the problem, as Volcker also noted, is a severe case of Daschle-itis — with a strong dose of Geithner-itis — that has sparked an intense spate of re-vetting of potential nominees. We've heard the process compared to some rather unpleasant medical procedures. According to one estimate, as many as a third of potential nominees were found to have had some tax questions to answer.

That ran on page A15 of yesterday's Washington Post.

Did you know that the Obama administration has not yet named anyone for those eleven supporting roles (one deputy, two undersecretaries, and eight assistant secretaries) at Treasury? I didn't.

We on the right have enjoyed the post-Daschle, post-Geithner, post-Killefer, and now post-Kirk joke, "Why do Democrats approve of higher taxes? Because they don't pay them." But if one-third of Obama's administrative nominees are in this same boat, it is no longer a joke. These people presumably knew they were potential appointees for a future Democratic administration. And they cut corners anyway.

r-r-right...

'Dick and Jane' is more that moron's speed.

So socialism hadn't been invented yet so the Founding Fathers could never have really commented on it, huh? Is that your assertion BJ?

Well perhaps the word socialism was not yet in vogue, or that particular form of governance had not yet been put into practice. However, there can be no doubt that the Founders were well aware of the evils of this particular "progressive" form of government that had not yet been invented.


Here's what a few of them had to say about it.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'"
-- Thomas Jefferson


“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson




"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787


“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison



I personally always loved this one-

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin


Another great one from Ben-

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin


I could cite many more BJ, but you get the general idea here I think. The bottom line is the Founding Fathers feared the thought of wealth redistribution as means for providing for the populace. This is, of course, the very principle upon which socialism/Marxism/communism/collectivism are founded on. These are these ideas that, so called, progressives embrace openly. They could not be futher from the ideals upon which our nation was founded though, and I could care less if socialsim had been invented yet or not! The Founders were wise enough to know that it would spell the end of the republic should it ever be adopted. Obama ignores these warnings and so too do all of the drones that believe that he has any answers to ur economic downturn. He doesn't!

Oh, and here are a couple of brilliant quotes about socialism/communism from a couple of conservatives that liberals love to hate.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
-- Ayn Rand



"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
-- Ronald Reagan


And one more from Moonie's favorite conservative!


"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
-- Winston Churchill



Riffy

glencars one liners are now tied for first.

c'mon g, we need more classic one liners!

I thought Brainbell's words were the best post I've read here. Nice job.
He made a point, rather than the mostly hysteric ramblings (me included here).

Did anyone catch The Daily Show rant last night. It was beautiful. Worth a youtube search.
Why is it that Stewart can cut thru all the crap, but major news outlets focus on BS?

Well, yeah, I will admit that I agree with them and hence that I do have a bias.

I have read a lot of your postings. Not very impressed with your conclusions, but again, I have a bias.

for my baby riffy....

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c130f64d6f/the-new-f-ing-citibank

where's moonie??

Riffhard wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 1:14pm:


Free market capitalism is bringing itself to its knees. Greed and fraud on the part of financial institutions have caused the carnage we see today. AIG selling uncollateralized credit default swaps is unconscionable. . .their executives should be locked away for blatant fraud. It's like a bookie taking bets, without any money to back up his losses.

I try to avoid all things Chris Matthews and Rush. . . . all opinion and no real analysis.

monkey_man wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 1:26pm:



So you're saying that Obama is doing a good job then? The fact that the market is now down 270 points on the day has zero to do with the fact that Obama is a complete and utter fucking idiot? No? Could it be that he is a complete and utter socialist that wants us all the government tit? Bingo! Well my friends on Wall Street certainly believe that he is either one or the other, and most lean towards the later. Obama is a putz! Anyone with any financial sense knows it m_m, and I'd be willing to bet that in your heart of hearts you know it too.

This does not excuse the assinine amount of greed and fraud perpetrated by some on Wall Street, but the vast vast majority of players in the market are free from fraud and self interested greed. I'm of the camp that believes AIG should just be allowed to die. So too goes for GM, Chrysler, Citi Bank and the rest of the companies that have been bailed out. At this point a complete restructuring of these companies must happen. To continue to bail them out with the next generations money is insane. It really is nothing more than generational theft! However, the one term chump is being rather insistent about the bailouts. I wonder why? I'll give you hint. Read Rules For Radicals. You'll find the answer has to why he wants to ensure national health care as well. It's all in the books that Barry delved into so deeply while he was fostering his hatred of capitalists and capitalism in general.


Riffy

check out my boy Some Guy throwin it down like Shaq Diesel!!