Obama '08?

I don't think O and the administration need attack Rush. There are legions who are willing to criticize him, especially by people in the media.

It is so amazing that the Reps are so willing to suck up to this lying gas bag.

Noted.

If that is true, then the left wingers like Cylops will have to wait for a long time for nationalization.

Note:


Gibbs: WH won't nationalize banks
By CAROL E. LEE | 2/20/09 6:07 PM EST Text Size:







The White House sought to restore confidence in the nation’s financial institutions on Friday by insisting that the Obama administration has no plan to nationalize the banking system.

Trading was near decade lows at the end of a tumultuous week on Wall Street, with Bank of America and Citigroup shares dropping over fears they could be nationalized.

“Let me reassure, as best I can,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said during the daily briefing. “The administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is " is the correct way to go, ensuring that they are regulated sufficiently by this government. That's been our belief for quite some time, and we continue to have that.”

The stock market was more or less unchanged following the briefing, and some commentators credited Gibbs with calming jittery nerves on the trading floor, despite press effort to parse his words.

Asked if his comments mean the administration was not ruling out bank nationalization, Gibbs went further to clarify his meaning, without going all the way on the point.

“No. No, no. Let me be clear,” he said. “The president believes that the bank " a privately held banking system regulated by the government is " is what this country should have.”

“’Should have,’ but does that mean he will not nationalize banks?” a reporter asked.

“It's hard for me to be clearer than " than where I just was.”

Meanwhile, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, one of the few Republicans nominated by President Barack Obama to serve in his Cabinet, got his first wrist-slap from the administration Friday.

On Thursday, LaHood’s told The Associated Press that the federal government should look at taxing people based on the miles they drive in their cars instead of a tax on gasoline. But Gibbs told reporters that the taxes on miles driven “is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration.”


***************************************************************

However, it may be that Gibbs is just as ingenous as his boss and he will change is stance on a technicality. The dishonesty and refusal to share information of this administration does not jibe with Obama;'s promise of Transparency. That is one of the most important reasons why the Market is plummeting. NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT!

Cyclops wrote:

What do you mean 'blame?' We're not the ones who rail against it, but the religious right is - while happily engaging in those same behaviors themselves in secret.

******************************************************************

Okie- Cyclops would probably tell you that the ACLU( PRIME DEFENDER OF PORNOGRAPHY AND EVEN GARBAGE LIKE NAMBLA) is a right wing site.

He never, as you noticed, posts evidence. He obviously thinks that even if and when he regugitates his unsourced Socialism, we will take him at his word.

Nonsense. The tax code on this is very clear - the use of any vehicle provided by an employer, or anyone else, involves imputed income, except only while in the preformance of work for an employer - and this does not include commuting or travel from your home. Moreover non-taxable gifts are limited to $10,000. The vehicle and chauffer provided were worth far more than that. Finally, though the media failed to report it widely, Daschle's $300,000 tax settlement with the IRS also included some large payments for consulting (lobbying) income he failed to report.

What section of the Internal Revenue Code is that? I am not aware that the provider of the vehicle was an employer. (I imagine that D was an independent contractor relative to his lobbying work.) Also, the gift tax is paid by the donor, not the donee. (E.g., a million dollar gift to D would not be taxable to him.) But, indeed, if the vehicle were provided as quid pro quo for D's services, the value is taxable as ordinary income. The consulting fees are another issue.

GEORGE OB1 wrote:


Nonsense. The tax code on this is very clear - the use of any vehicle provided by an employer, or anyone else, involves imputed income, except only while in the preformance of work for an employer - and this does not include commuting or travel from your home. Moreover non-taxable gifts are limited to $10,000. The vehicle and chauffer provided were worth far more than that. Finally, though the media failed to report it widely, Daschle's $300,000 tax settlement with the IRS also included some large payments for consulting (lobbying) income he failed to report.

CYCLOPS wrote:

What do you mean 'blame?' We're not the ones who rail against it, but the religious right is - while happily engaging in those same behaviors themselves in secret.

******************************************************************

Okie- Cyclops would probably tell you that the ACLU( PRIME DEFENDER OF PORNOGRAPHY AND EVEN GARBAGE LIKE NAMBLA) is a right wing site.

He never, as you noticed, posts evidence. He obviously thinks that even if and when he regugitates his unsourced Socialism, we will take him at his word.

What a joke.

Obama's plan is to help the economy.

Limbaugh clearly states 'I hope Obama fails and his plans fail.'

Therefore, Limbaugh wants the economy to continue failing. It is clear that this is exactly what he means.

Cycloptichorn

Direct from the Limbaugh web site:

That's the conservative way; trash our country into smithereens, then hope the next democratic president fails to recover our economy and foreign relations.

Good evening. I am reminded of a quip from, I believe, Will Rogers, which goes something like:
I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat.
It seems to me that the Dems have or should stay out of the tiff between Mr Limbaugh and Mr Steele. At last check the new RNC chair apologized to the former for daring to criticize Rush for hoping Obama and his economic policy fail.
The Repubs have about 15 months to decide who leads and speaks for the party.

They can move towards moderation - and a broader base of support - or they can listen to Limbaugh and his more conservative core value Rep philosophy. 15 months, in which many issues will be debated and voted upon in Congress. 15 months. Do the Repubs want to roll the dice and expect the economy then to be as bad as it is now? If it is, the right might benefit from a "throw the scoundrels out" reaction. But if they are wrong, they will get killed in Nov, 2009. And, believe it or not, that would be an outcome I would not be happy about.

rjb, The republicans have greater problems than just our economic future; it seems the only viable candidates now are Sarah Palin the joe the plumber.

The republican party really doesn't have any "real" leaders, and what they are doing against what is seen as helping America and Americans by the republican congress does not sit well with the majority who have lost most of their wealth under GWBush. If my recollections are correct, the republicans were already a "minority" party when it comes to voters.

The republican party needs an overhaul like our economy, or they'll disappear from the national scene for decades to come.

Limbaugh is the conservative spokesperson now?

I meant, of course, to put the mid-term elections in Nov 2010. Sorry.

If somebody thinks lighting the barn on fire will save the farm, do you hope that person succeeds?

At no time has Limbaugh ever stated that he wished the economy would tank, or that the country would fail, or that we would lose a war, or that anyone would be stricken with anything bad. Its as simple as if somebody tries to institute policies that you believe to be bad for the country, it is totally reasonable and expected to want that person to fail in instituting those policies.

Anybody that cannot understand this is just dense, and dense on purpose, and they are purposely twisting it out of context in an effort to marginalize somebody. This is of course intellectually dishonest.

It is an effort to marginalize and demonize Limbaugh. You have groups sitting aroung all day listening to Rush, spending hours every day looking for something, anything to use against him, by taking anything out of context. This is a concerted efffort, and the very fact that they can't come up with anything credible, but instead have to fabricate, twist, and take something out of context, to have anything, after literally years on the air, it is a tribute to Limbaugh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/rush-limbaugh-at-cpac-dou_n_170792.html

Are you so naive as to believe that politicians are not aware of the ramifications of, including taxes, in regard to gifts or things of value given to them or paid to them by political cronies or other entities. This has to be a common game played, and these people know exactly what its all about. They live with that stuff for years, they know about it. To suggest it is an oversight, is just plain stupid in my opinion, or the politicians are too stupid to even claim to know enough to legislate. If they don't know that, they should go home and get a real job, which they shoud do anyway, most of them. Most of them have been there way too long. They have done enough damage to the country.

Exactly right, imposter, and I want him to fail too, precisely because I do not want to see him run the country into the ground. I want the country to succeed, and Obama's policies are not the way to have that happen.

Now, imposter, choose to be dense about this if you want, but it only shows your own dishonesty.

I think maybe Obama wants the economy to tank, for a while, so that he can institute his socialistic policies, part of his effort to "remake the country." He says so himself, that is what he is doing. And Rahm Emanuel is on record for saying, do not waste crisis to get things done. I think they are loving this crisis. If they weren't loving it, Obama would be out there talking up the future, injecting confidence, but he isn't, he talks down the economy, doom and gloom. And when investors look at this philosophy and policies, they are very pessimistic. They probably see that if he actually does what he is trying to do, the country suffers.

Story today..

Obama's rating at an all time high..

I wonder if the same 30% that don't like him are the same 30% that liked Bush.

Can't be anything else.