View Full Version : Obama Nominates Another Tax Cheat (More Change We Can Believe In??)
valvano
03-02-2009, 10:54 PM
One week he wants to raise taxes on the earners for his massive income redistribution program, the next week another Obama nominee is busted for back taxes:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/trade-nominee-ron-kirk-pay-taxes/
"Yes We Can" "Hope" ......"Same Ole Liberal Hypocrisy" :rolleyes:
don't see how this is obama's fault
Burnout18
03-03-2009, 12:29 AM
don't see how this is obama's fault
Can you tell something about a guy from the company he keeps?
QueenAdrock
03-03-2009, 12:56 AM
Actually, he's not wanting to raise taxes on the upper 2%, at least not yet. It's a shame, really. All the Democrats in Congress want it, but he's still hesitant. I still like how "OMG REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!" is a bullet point of the right-wing flapping heads, when he actually hasn't done anything about it. :rolleyes: I sure hope he gets up off his ass and rolls back the Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts Bush implemented were irresponsible; there was a surplus under Clinton and the country ran well. Righties absolutely hate to admit that fact, so they just yell "Socialism!" instead, in a weak hope that somehow they'll scare people into not wanting to skim an extra few dollars away from their 6-digit income.
owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments
What an asshole! Making his payments! Hey, Valvano, what do you think of Sarah Palin owing $25,000 in back taxes? She hasn't agreed to pay them back yet, unlike this fellow. I personally think it's shitty to owe back taxes and ignore them, rather than set up a payment plan.
DroppinScience
03-03-2009, 01:13 AM
What an asshole! Making his payments! Hey, Valvano, what do you think of Sarah Palin owing $25,000 in back taxes? She hasn't agreed to pay them back yet, unlike this fellow. I personally think it's shitty to owe back taxes and ignore them, rather than set up a payment plan.
Uhhh... don't you get it? If your political foe is a tax cheat, it's an outrage. If your political ally is a tax cheat, you look the other way!
RobMoney$
03-03-2009, 06:09 AM
L.O.L.
The same ol' QA & DS tag-team routine.
Don't you guys have you get back to campus and get some petitions signed or something?
Can you tell something about a guy from the company he keeps?
it sounds like the back taxes weren't discovered until after he nominated the guy? at least he's bothering to find out and address these things
YoungRemy
03-03-2009, 10:52 AM
lol Fox news
valvano
03-03-2009, 05:56 PM
it sounds like the back taxes weren't discovered until after he nominated the guy? at least he's bothering to find out and address these things
shouldnt Obama find out BEFORE he nominated the guy he's doesnt pay his taxes and shouldnt the nominee have taken of this BEFORE going public??
valvano
03-03-2009, 05:57 PM
lol Fox news
LOL fail to address the issue...
L.O.L.
The same ol' QA & DS tag-team routine.
Don't you guys have you get back to campus and get some petitions signed or something?
and rob you're right back to trolling again.
seriously dude, just let go of your hatred. life is too short.
Schmeltz
03-03-2009, 07:12 PM
Can you tell something about a guy from the company he keeps?
Probably, but it doesn't seem to matter much. (http://www.vandenbergforcongress.com/images/RumsfeldHussein.jpg) Given the things of which your country's previous administrators were guilty, I fail to see why a paltry ten grand in back taxes is such a big deal. It sounds more and more like this sort of thing is rife among many Capitol Hill bigwigs - not that tax evasion should be overlooked or excused, but honestly if it's all you can come up with then your position is pretty weak. But we all knew that already.
valvano
03-03-2009, 07:13 PM
^ I think you all are missing the point.
Politicians, no matter the party, write tax policy. And yes, everybody should pay their legal tax obligations yet, at the same time, were tax relief is legally available, by all means you should take full advantage of it. That being said, it is hypocritical of a president, who wishes to further punish the earners of the country by increasing the % of their income taken by the federal govt, to be nominating folks to his political post who, we come to find out, are lacking on their own taxes. Its like the doctor who tells you to quit smoking while he has a pack of Marlboros in his shirt pocket.
The second thing this whole issue proves is that they entire tax code is so insanely complicated that assuming these are all legitimate mistakes, it just goes to prove the need for a total tax overhaul.
I did not vote for BHO, nor did I vote for JM, and I do think it is great that a person of his background was elected, politics aside. That being said, he is totally destroying the part of the economy that wasnt previously destroyed by W. Government is not the solution, its the problem.
yeah, by providing a stimulus for everyday americans and attempting to create jobs, while encouraging more electric and hybrid cars to be manufactured and solar energy or a green economy is totally destroying the economy.
Schmeltz
03-03-2009, 07:23 PM
That being said, it is hypocritical of a president, who wishes to further punish the earners of the country by increasing the % of their income taken by the federal govt, to be nominating folks to his political post who, we come to find out, are lacking on their own taxes. Its like the doctor who tells you to quit smoking while he has a pack of Marlboros in his shirt pocket.
But it's already been pointed out that he was unaware of this indiscretion when he made the nomination. So actually it's like a doctor who tells you to quit smoking, but has a receptionist who smokes cigarettes, and the doctor doesn't even know about it.
See the reason people are missing your point is that you don't actually have one.
DroppinScience
03-03-2009, 07:26 PM
Government is not the solution, its the problem.
Please, half-backed Reagonomic buzzwords have been passe for quite awhile.
valvano
03-03-2009, 07:28 PM
yeah, by providing a stimulus for everyday americans and attempting to create jobs, while encouraging more electric and hybrid cars to be manufactured and solar energy or a green economy is totally destroying the economy.
what stimulus, $13/month? ha ha ha. if electric and hybrid cars were so great dont you think the public would have demanded it by now? ever heard of supply and demand.
let me ask you, you still some student in school somewhere or are you out here making a living and supporting a family?? be truthful.
valvano
03-03-2009, 07:29 PM
Please, half-backed Reagonomic buzzwords have been passe for quite awhile.
what problems have govt solved?
we've already spent trillions on past social programs (see LBJ)...if that worked so good, then why is Obama having to do it even more??
But it's already been pointed out that he was unaware of this indiscretion when he made the nomination. So actually it's like a doctor who tells you to quit smoking, but has a receptionist who smokes cigarettes, and the doctor doesn't even know about it.
See the reason people are missing your point is that you don't actually have one.
i was about to make the very same analogy (and i was going to add something about subsequently firing the receptionist, but we'll see if the new guy sticks around or not), thanks (y)
valvano
03-03-2009, 07:30 PM
But it's already been pointed out that he was unaware of this indiscretion when he made the nomination. So actually it's like a doctor who tells you to quit smoking, but has a receptionist who smokes cigarettes, and the doctor doesn't even know about it.
See the reason people are missing your point is that you don't actually have one.
a president who wants to raise taxes has 4 nominees with tax troubles and you dont see a problem with that??? i think YOU are missing the point.
if electric and hybrid cars were so great dont you think the public would have demanded it by now? ever heard of supply and demand.
ha ha ha
Schmeltz
03-03-2009, 07:48 PM
a president who wants to raise taxes has 4 nominees with tax troubles and you dont see a problem with that??? i think YOU are missing the point.
Given that THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY KNOW ABOUT THE SECRETIVE AND EVASIVE TAX PROBLEMS OF HIS NOMINEES, I don't see a real problem with that, no. The real issue is why tax evasion is apparently so prevalent on Capitol Hill - although it's hardly surprising given what else is prevalent on Capitol Hill (ie war profiteering, treason, negligence, incompetence, etc) and probably a damn sight better than what the last administration was guilty of.
what stimulus, $13/month? ha ha ha. if electric and hybrid cars were so great dont you think the public would have demanded it by now? ever heard of supply and demand.
i suppose then the big three detroit auto manufacturers are being bailed out for the hell of it.
QueenAdrock
03-03-2009, 08:09 PM
L.O.L.
The same ol' QA & DS tag-team routine.
Don't you guys have you get back to campus and get some petitions signed or something?
My word! Heaven forbid that DS and I are on the computer at the same time! :rolleyes:
I do have to get back to campus, actually. I've had a paper accepted at two conferences and it's about to be published so I need to work on my presentations. But you know, if you want to take that and struggle to turn it into something "condescending" about liberal academics, by all means. (y)
i suppose then the big three detroit auto manufacturers are being bailed out for the hell of it.
no, they demanded it, so the government supplied it
DroppinScience
03-03-2009, 08:36 PM
what problems have govt solved?
we've already spent trillions on past social programs (see LBJ)...if that worked so good, then why is Obama having to do it even more??
I know you're stuck in this lame-ass 1980s time warp where the illusion that the policies of Reagan and Bush were resounding successes was commonplace, but I'll indulge you...
What problems have government solved? Oh, I dunno, rescuing the world from the Great Depression, the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are good starts. Rebuilding Europe via The Marshall Plan was a nice touch, too. Implementing social security, ending child labor, and allowing unions to form was pretty neat too. Sweeping civil rights legislation for women and minorities was also pretty cool. Let's see... what else, environmental protection, paving roads, building schools, libraries, fire halls, police forces, safety regulations for automobiles, food, etc. are also great things government has done. Do you want me to continue?
And I've told you this the last time you brought up LBJ and the Great Society, but I'll tell you again since you clearly forgot. LBJ's social programs were WORKING and helped give literacy and employment to various minorities who needed skill sets to advance their status in American society. You may not be fond of minorities given chances to succeed, but minorities are entitled to opportunities too. What was the downfall? Well, LBJ was also spending far too much on the VIETNAM WAR, which also crippled those social programs he was touting. Oh yeah, and various Republican administrations afterwards (Nixon, Reagan, Bushes) all but dismantled that, which pretty much kept the poor poor and even contributed to a growing amount of working poor.
But I know, I know, you won't get it because you want to stay in your comfortable little neo-con bubble where Rush Limbaugh is never wrong and Sarah Palin was Vice-President. But reality will set in some time.
valvano
03-03-2009, 10:20 PM
I know you're stuck in this lame-ass 1980s time warp where the illusion that the policies of Reagan and Bush were resounding successes was commonplace, but I'll indulge you...
What problems have government solved? Oh, I dunno, rescuing the world from the Great Depression, the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are good starts. Rebuilding Europe via The Marshall Plan was a nice touch, too. Implementing social security, ending child labor, and allowing unions to form was pretty neat too. Sweeping civil rights legislation for women and minorities was also pretty cool. Let's see... what else, environmental protection, paving roads, building schools, libraries, fire halls, police forces, safety regulations for automobiles, food, etc. are also great things government has done. Do you want me to continue?
And I've told you this the last time you brought up LBJ and the Great Society, but I'll tell you again since you clearly forgot. LBJ's social programs were WORKING and helped give literacy and employment to various minorities who needed skill sets to advance their status in American society. You may not be fond of minorities given chances to succeed, but minorities are entitled to opportunities too. What was the downfall? Well, LBJ was also spending far too much on the VIETNAM WAR, which also crippled those social programs he was touting. Oh yeah, and various Republican administrations afterwards (Nixon, Reagan, Bushes) all but dismantled that, which pretty much kept the poor poor and even contributed to a growing amount of working poor.
But I know, I know, you won't get it because you want to stay in your comfortable little neo-con bubble where Rush Limbaugh is never wrong and Sarah Palin was Vice-President. But reality will set in some time.
excuse me, but democrats have pretty much controlled congress for about 95% of the past 75 or so years...you know, poor folks keep voting democrat year after year after year and guess what, they are still poor...
oh, and obama did acknowledge druing the election that reagans capital gains tax cuts actually increased tax revenue...he just wants to do it to make things fair (?)...the top income % pays the biggest chunk of taxes in the us already...just keep piling on?
RobMoney$
03-03-2009, 10:23 PM
I do have to get back to campus, actually. I've had a paper accepted at two conferences and it's about to be published so I need to work on my presentations. But you know, if you want to take that and struggle to turn it into something "condescending" about liberal academics, by all means. (y)
Ahh,...That snobbish, condescending attitude of thinking you're always right.
Could you be anymore of a cliche?
Let me guess, you'll be wearing a scarf tied in a euro-knot for your trip back to campus, right?
QueenAdrock
03-03-2009, 10:54 PM
1) How do I always think I'm always right? I don't get anything like that out of my post. But how do you believe that you don't fall into that category?
2) What is your obsession with me and Brett? I mean, you attack us for doing nothing at all. It's a little worrisome that you jump on everything we do, especially how we don't even provoke you. Well, not worrisome actually. Just kind of sad.
RobMoney$
03-03-2009, 11:03 PM
(!) If you guys didn't team up on people like the BBMB-GP version of Chip & Dale, I wouldn't be able to criticize you for it.
Indubitably!
QueenAdrock
03-03-2009, 11:07 PM
Note that that first post of mine was the first time I've posted here in long while. Brett's been here quite often. I say something, he happens to agree with it. It happens quite a bit on this board with other members, I don't see you calling them out on "teaming up." You just notice it with us because you know we're dating.
Seriously Rob, give it a rest.
Ahh,...That snobbish, condescending attitude of thinking you're always right.
Could you be anymore of a cliche?
Let me guess, you'll be wearing a scarf tied in a euro-knot for your trip back to campus, right?
don't you think this was a fairly snobbish and condescending thing to say?
and before you say anything, i'm totally fine with being a condescending snob, so don't bother
Burnout18
03-04-2009, 12:32 AM
it sounds like the back taxes weren't discovered until after he nominated the guy? at least he's bothering to find out and address these things
Thats true, but there is some irony in appointing a guy who dodged payroll taxes to be the head of the treasury....
and just for shits and giggles http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/02/27/2009-02-27_alaska_governor_sarah_palin_tax_problems.html
Burnout18
03-04-2009, 12:41 AM
Actually, he's not wanting to raise taxes on the upper 2%, at least not yet. It's a shame, really. All the Democrats in Congress want it, but he's still hesitant.
No it's not about redistribution, right now with the economy tanking and people pulling out the market, wouldn't you want the top 5% with more cash in thier pockets?..... traditionally, the wealthy use thier cash to get even wealthier, whether it be government bonds or the stock market, they will invest or spend thier cash, and that money will help turn the economy around... You have to start by putting more cash in everyone's pocket, including the top percentile.
In 2011 when the bush cuts expire, hopefully then the economy has turned around, then we obama can raise his taxes to fix the treasury or do whatever else he pleases.
DroppinScience
03-04-2009, 01:17 AM
excuse me, but democrats have pretty much controlled congress for about 95% of the past 75 or so years...you know, poor folks keep voting democrat year after year after year and guess what, they are still poor...
oh, and obama did acknowledge druing the election that reagans capital gains tax cuts actually increased tax revenue...he just wants to do it to make things fair (?)...the top income % pays the biggest chunk of taxes in the us already...just keep piling on?
Once again, you're only telling half the story and leaving out plenty of important bits.
Yes, historically Democrats have controlled Congress for MANY of the 50+ years, but you're going by the assumption that all Democrats are the same. Many of them have been conservative/moderate/centrist and even you fair share of racist southern Democrats (who conveniently switched to the GOP once the party dynamics took a pro-civil rights stance). This means a great number of politicians -- from both sides of the aisle -- weren't exactly interested in helping the poor. The problem with your point is you assume the Democrats are some monolithic entity when they're really just a ragtag coalition of competing interests (not unlike the Republicans, too).
You also forgot to mention that Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 of the 40 years, so that fact alone means there's many stumbling blocks in getting a comprehensive anti-poverty initiative going. And poor people, as a matter of fact -- 2008 being now the HUGE exception -- have been voting Republican time and again ever since Reagan convinced the blue collar to switch parties, which effectively means they've been voting enthusiastically to KEEP themselves poor. It's Republicans (and too often too many Democrats) who create and keep the poor even poorer.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.