punked Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Thing is Obama spoke against cronyism then right after getting elected appoints 17 democrat lobbyists to cushy jobs. 2 tax evaders which one dropped out yesterday. Yeah sounds like every great and shitty president. This is par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yeah sounds like every great and shitty president. This is par for the course. He said he was "The hope for Change". Was that just a lie to get elected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 No it is not par for the course. That is if you want to believe Obama, when he yesterday admitted he "screwed" up. 2 weeks into his term and he screws up. His administration has been badly embarrassed by this, and in spite of kool-aid drinkers like punked(I could see your purple mustache) his approval numbers have dropped 25%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 while the stimulus poll numbers are in the mid 60's I say you know nothing Hmm, I'd say it's you, who knows nothing. Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure. Rasmussen Looks like your opinions are based on old data. You gotta stay up to date in this business son. A rookie leading the most influential nation in the world during the worst financial crisis since the depression. Exactly. But the mainstream media was obsessed with a rookie as a possible Vice President, meanwhile, a rookie as President made them yawn. I don't think Obama picked the people because they were tax cheaters, they never revealed their tax problems to him. That's incorrect. They knew about all of their tax problems. That's why Geithner paid his unpaid taxes shortly before he was chosen. And Daschle's tax issues were known since June. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Spin War isn't over yet http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009...-stimulus_N.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Sometimes you wish the last presidential scandals would stop but then you see the way they treat Obama. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/..._firings_fo.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 Sometimes you wish the last presidential scandals would stop but then you see the way they treat Obama.http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/..._firings_fo.php Obama might just be the babe in the woods at this point...I will never understand if the Presidency is all powerful - then why did he suck up to the Clintonites as if he was afraid of them - which in all probablity he is. He may be big on the oratory but short on the bravery factor. Even if Obama was pure and good - which he probably is - this attitude and mind set is a danger to the empire - that has and always will run on impurity and corruption. I feel sorry for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Its like some people think there is a secret switch in the presidential desk that turns corruption on and off. Defining and rooting out corruption is not a quick job, it is a long term determined effort. What we see here is the process working, the corrupted people being identified, and the issues being resolved. I can't speak to all of the details of each case, but to me the dividing line on taxes is whether the back tax payments are deliberately avoided or not. I messed up my taxes for a couple of years when I ran a small business, and ended up owing them a couple of grand or two plus penalties. It wasn't because I wasn't honest, it was because I didn't understand how larger business right offs are amortized, you can't write it off all in one year. It was an honest mistake. If the people owing back taxes deliberately tried to avoid them, then yes, they should be turfed and tried for fraud. But if it was an oversite, then, these people are human, not perfect, they still may have other skills that make them uniquely suited for the job. We have to give people a chance to be human and learn to uphold themselves to the new standards. I think this process of rooting out corruption is continuous, and of course there are going to be speed bumps at the beginning as people are held to a higher standard. But, for me, it is this openness that leads me to trust the government, it is the steadfast denial of any wrong doing no matter what that makes me suspicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 ...If the people owing back taxes deliberately tried to avoid them, then yes, they should be turfed and tried for fraud. But if it was an oversite, then, these people are human, not perfect, they still may have other skills that make them uniquely suited for the job. We have to give people a chance to be human and learn to uphold themselves to the new standards. That's fine....there are existing provisions in the tax code to penalize "honest mistakes". The problem here is that their "honest mistakes" are realized only when seeking appointment to yet another government office. I think this process of rooting out corruption is continuous, and of course there are going to be speed bumps at the beginning as people are held to a higher standard. But, for me, it is this openness that leads me to trust the government, it is the steadfast denial of any wrong doing no matter what that makes me suspicious. There will always be corruption or even simple conflicts of interest. Nobody is indispensable because of qualifications. Obama unnecessarily set himself up for the expectation of a higher political standard. His appointees shouldn't blame Turbo Tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 That's fine....there are existing provisions in the tax code to penalize "honest mistakes". The problem here is that their "honest mistakes" are realized only when seeking appointment to yet another government office.There will always be corruption or even simple conflicts of interest. Nobody is indispensable because of qualifications. Obama unnecessarily set himself up for the expectation of a higher political standard. His appointees shouldn't blame Turbo Tax. I also would prefer that the "honest mistakes" had been dealt with prior to being appointed government office. However, I also understand that the level of taxation scrutiny just before you take government office is higher now than it has ever been. So mistakes that you may not been aware of that had been missed before are being caught now. This is the process working. I agree that there will always be attempts at corruption. Its human nature. Its how we deal with that corruption that matters. I want an open administration that finds it, identifies it, and deals with it up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 ....I also understand that the level of taxation scrutiny just before you take government office is higher now than it has ever been. So mistakes that you may not been aware of that had been missed before are being caught now. This is the process working. The process "working" does not include special scrutiny because Obama reached out and touched someone. Anybody who hires assistants, takes payments in kind, or fails to declare income from all sources knows damn well what they are doing. And in this case, can certainly afford to hire competent help on their taxes, even if complicated. I agree that there will always be attempts at corruption. Its human nature. Its how we deal with that corruption that matters. I want an open administration that finds it, identifies it, and deals with it up front. This administration found it and still decided to go forward. That is arrogance on top of "corruption". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The process "working" does not include special scrutiny because Obama reached out and touched someone. Anybody who hires assistants, takes payments in kind, or fails to declare income from all sources knows damn well what they are doing. And in this case, can certainly afford to hire competent help on their taxes, even if complicated. This administration found it and still decided to go forward. That is arrogance on top of "corruption". It does include special scrutiny, that's what vetting is. The administration found it and announced it publicly. That is why it is neither corrupt or arrogant. And the president later admitting a mistake? That is the absolute opposite of arrogance, that is humility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 And it just keeps going... Husband of Rep. Solis, Labor nominee, settles tax liens WASHINGTON — The husband of President Obama's Labor secretary nominee paid about $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years against his business, the Obama administration told USA TODAY this afternoon. USAToday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 It does include special scrutiny, that's what vetting is.The administration found it and announced it publicly. That is why it is neither corrupt or arrogant. And the president later admitting a mistake? That is the absolute opposite of arrogance, that is humility. I wasn't aware that Obama's administration announced the tax issues of it's recent nominations. Please cite if you can. What is at issue here is Obama saying things will be different, going so far as to lecture CEOs with big bonuses, and now make legislation limiting it among those who take a bail out. He didn't need to root out corruption, Steveo, in his own administration. These are all new people he's been choosing for his administration. Simply, he needed to pick clean people. He has failed. Those he nominated are not clean and do not have integrity. Owing tens of thousands to the very government they want to serve. The vetting process failed, or the bar was set too low to even consider someone who owes over 100,000 to the IRS. Then when he hears he's being nominated, quickly pays his back taxes, which he was content to previously let sit unpaid for years. Hypocrite. Like I said earlier, the more things (hope and) change, the more they stay the same. Obama has embarrassed himself and has hurt the chances of his stimulus bill. Dummy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I wasn't aware that Obama's administration announced the tax issues of it's recent nominations. Please cite if you can. What is at issue here is Obama saying things will be different, going so far as to lecture CEOs with big bonuses, and now make legislation limiting it among those who take a bail out. He didn't need to root out corruption, Steveo, in his own administration. These are all new people he's been choosing for his administration. Simply, he needed to pick clean people. He has failed. Those he nominated are not clean and do not have integrity. Owing tens of thousands to the very government they want to serve. The vetting process failed, or the bar was set too low to even consider someone who owes over 100,000 to the IRS. Then when he hears he's being nominated, quickly pays his back taxes, which he was content to previously let sit unpaid for years. Hypocrite. Like I said earlier, the more things (hope and) change, the more they stay the same. Obama has embarrassed himself and has hurt the chances of his stimulus bill. Dummy. Citation, look at the prior post. It was Obama's administration who revealed the shortfall to USA today (shady's post). The Daschle issue was also released by the administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/us/polit...ml?ref=politics President Obama’s pick for health and human services secretary, Tom Daschle, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes, partly for free use of a car and driver that had been provided to him by a prominent businessman and Democratic fund-raiser, administration officials said Friday. Obama saying things will be different DOESN'T mean there won't be any corrupt people or people with issues. What it does mean is that they discover it, they deal with it. I don't think any reasonable person would actually believe Obama is some kind of Messiah who can magically read peoples minds and histories and know all. Picking only clean people from a pool of politicians is simply not possible. Cleaning them up or turfing them out after the fact is. He has also frozen all salaries over 100 000 including his own within the white house. Since he himself is willing to cut back on raises, it is entirely reasonable that those looking for public money should also do the same. Change is not a switch. Hope is not a solution. Change is setting higher standards and holding yourself and others to them, hope is believing this will result in a stronger, less corrupt government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) Obama saying things will be different means not nominating people who owe thousands in back taxes. It means a higher standard. It means a proper vetting process. It means weeding out the people with problems in the vetting process. You don't have to read their minds to look at their tax history. Their criminal record. Their history period. Obama managed to pick others without problems, so it is possible. Edit: I would add that at the very least, after Obama promising change, he's not off to the kind of start he wanted. Edited February 5, 2009 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The honeymoon is definitely over! Gibbs may end up having the shortest career as a White House spokesperson in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Edit: I would add that at the very least, after Obama promising change, he's not off to the kind of start he wanted. If Obama's team was all perfect and flawless, I would believe we were being brainwashed. I don't think ending corruption is an easy task by any stretch, I am so far encouraged by their efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't think ending corruption is an easy task by any stretch Especially when the President continues to appoint corrupt people to his administration, and continues to break his "no lobbyists" in government rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Shady and his pals.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Shady and his pals.... They'll probably blame the black guy in the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 If Obama's team was all perfect and flawless, I would believe we were being brainwashed. I don't think ending corruption is an easy task by any stretch, I am so far encouraged by their efforts. No one is claiming they should be perfect. Let me repeat myself. Obama raised the bar when he promised he'd do things differently. No one else. Now he is unable to meet the standard he set. After only one week in office. The left shrugs its shoulders at this because they don't really care about lying politicians, as long as they're democrat politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Shady and his pals.... It's not my fault that nominee, after nominee, after nominee, has the same, or similar problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) Of course, the title of this thread is mis-leading. The appointment wasn't even complete and the nomination withdrawn. But we can all see the immediate improvement with Obama. After all we are no longer living in the Republican era in which this kind of information would either have been shrugged off or the person revealing this would have been investigated or prosecuted. We are now in the era of transparancy and openness and yes, did I hear Obama make an apology and take full responsibility? How many years did it take Bush to accept full responsibility for much worse mistakes? Seven years? And Reagan or Nixon? "If the President does it, it's not illegal." Edited February 6, 2009 by daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 ....We are now in the era of transparancy and openness and yes, did I hear Obama make an apology and take full responsibility? How many years did it take Bush to accept full responsibility for much worse mistakes? Seven years? And Reagan or Nixon? "If the President does it, it's not illegal." "We" are? Does this include Ottawa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.