FYI I did not get into a snit about anything. You can think I did all you want but I didn't.

I got mad because I wanted to discuss somethign that was on my mind. You turned it into a political debate about who did what. That is the reason i hardly ever come in here.

I have been working ever since I came back here to avoid any thread you are in and now that I know you are in the political therads I won't come in here anymore. For that matter from here on out I have you on ignore. I hate to do that to anyone but everything you ever respond to me with is something negative and because of that I will stay away from you and ignore you.

You get mad about everything when someone doesn't want to listen to you complain about about everything.

You have said 3 timnes you were NOT going to post in the tread, then you come back long enough to bitch at me because I called you out on something you posted.

Whatever Steve.

During the January 18 edition of MSNBC Live, host Tamron Hall stated that "the inauguration festivities" for President-elect Barack Obama are "estimated to reach as high as $150 million," adding that "n 2004, to note, the inauguration of George W. Bush cost roughly $40 million." However, the $40 million figure that Hall cited for Bush's second inauguration reportedly does not include certain costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia such as security and transportation costs; these costs are included in the $150 million estimate that the media are reporting for the Obama inauguration. When the costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia are factored in, the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration was reportedly around $157 million, as Media Matters for America senior fellow Eric Boehlert noted.

He froze staff salaries?

Damn, I like that [!@#$%^&*].

I'm just as excited about Hilary being SOS. And really, with a 94-2 vote, pretty much everybody in D.C. likes her.

How is Blagojevich missing his own trial not illegal? Do we let everybody cry about the process?

Edited January 27, 200916 yr by bandbfan

So apparently the interview process in the Obama Admin. goes like this:

"We need a Sec. Of Interior. Question. Have you paid your taxes?"

"Not for the last twenty years."

"You're hired!"

Let's get it together people. Damn.

Taxes....it was just an innocent mistake....that everyone else gets punished for.

I for one LOVE the change that Obama is bringing......lets say we are changing the ethical standard of DC and not allowing lobbyists in the door...except for the ones that he really really likes.

And lets nominate a man to lead the Treasury department who failed several times to pay taxes.

man, all these changes in the first 15 days is making my head spin!

Isn't that special?

Well, with all the [!@#$%^&*] crooks we just got rid of from the last God-awful, [!@#$%^&*] sucking administration (Like GWB can even spell that) 2 or 3 crooks seems like a VAST improvement.

Thanks for your once-every-six-month visit, Kwing.

change has come to Washington. Obama admitted a mistake, something that shrub did not do the entire eight years he was in office.

As far as the treasury secretary, he had paid his taxes prior to being nominated, it was a mistake and he is one of the most respected people in his field, which is why even the GOP overlooked the tax thing.

Daschle didn't pass the ethics test.

I find it interesting that people criticize Obama for having an ethics code. Had he not put in place an ethics code, the fact that he has ONE former lobbyist in the defense department would not even be noticed.

And, it might be easier to count the crooks who were NOT in the Bush Admin.

But, I guess we just have to get used to 4 years of bitching from people who defended the worst admin. (Bush) in American history.

And, it might be easier to count the crooks who were NOT in the Bush Admin.

But, I guess we just have to get used to 4 years of bitching from people who defended the worst admin. (Bush) in American history.

Yo, Roman... what's up?!?

I have accepted the fact that the Obama administration will be criticized no matter what. I too think it was amazing that Obama admitted to a mistake, but I think we set too high of a standard for our politicians. How many millions of people have had issues with the IRS; people from all walks of life.

Anyway, I beleive this admin is trying to change the way Washington does business. Change is a long, hard and difficult road to travel. Prepare for many bumps.

Edited February 5, 200916 yr by UCLAN

Well we may get a Supreme Court pick sometime this year or next since Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer. It'll HAVE to be a woman, as she's the only one left.

Wasn't she a little old when Clinton picked her? The Bushes picked younger people who will be on the court for decades.

Edited February 5, 200916 yr by bandbfan

Well, with all the [!@#$%^&*] crooks we just got rid of from the last God-awful, [!@#$%^&*] sucking administration (Like GWB can even spell that) 2 or 3 crooks seems like a VAST improvement.

I know. I mean Bush hired bigots, criminals, and etc. Many were even in the Justice Department.

This is a list of the projects and programs that either were slashed or cut out altogether:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/sti...cuts/index.html

Now, read this and tell me........

Did we just get screwed with no vasaline on some of this?

Howdy, y'all.

Had to take a break for a little bit, but my liberal ass is back.

^ ^ Roman - YES. I think we did get the high hard one on the cuts. Interesting how they are cutting things like Head Start and Title 1. Even cutting money for the EPA Superfund to clean up industrial waste. But no cuts to the money they are giving the banks or Wall Street or the nearly bankrupt American car companies.

I think it's great that Obama has capped executive pay. But more needs to be done for everyday people. What good does it do to give Citibank billions of dollars if they aren't lending it?

Speaking from experience, most of my credit card's credit lines have been cut in half by the issuer (Citi and Chase). Why? They gave no reason. It's not like I owe alot of money or have bad credit. But the actions they are taking DO affect my credit rating. I don't get it.

What we need is help for the homeowners. Help for people with mortgages that are going into foreclosure. Until the housing market is righted, the rest of the economy will not recuperate. But that seemed like one of the last things they debated when it came to this package.

If they had to cut some things to affect greater passage through the Senate, then fine. I'd like to see a more unpartisan package passed, but why all the cuts coming from things that everyday Americans need now more than ever? Teachers are being laid off, and they are cutting that from the bill? I don't get it.