Do any of Obama's appointees NOT have any tax issues????

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

Do any of Obama's appointees NOT have any tax issues????

Timothy F. Geithner

Tom Daschle

Nancy Killefer

and now

Rep. Hilda Solis

Who is vetting these people, Mickey Mouse??? No wonder the Dems want to raise everyone else's taxes because they aren't paying it themselves. I have one word for that "Hypocrats". Hmmm Hypocrats seems to rhyme with another word, what word could that be ??????

[mendhak]

Do any of Obama's appointees NOT have any tax issues????

I did a search and found a list of appointees on Yahoo Answers. By process of elimination based on your post, the answer to your question is that the following appointees do not have tax problems.

State: Hillary Clinton
Defense: Robert Gates
Justice: Eric Holder
Veterans Affairs: Eric Shinseki
Energy: Steven Chu
Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano
HUD: Shaun Donovan
Commerce: Bill Richardson
NSA: General James Jones
Chief of Staff: Rahm Emanuel
OMB Director: Peter Orszag
UN Ambassador: Susan Rice

[Shaggy Hiker]

Bill Richardson withdrew and was replaced by Judd Greg, who also doesn't have tax problems. Also, Nancy Killefer had such a tiny tax liability that she didn't withdraw because of it. I don't know why she withdrew, the position didn't need senate confirmation, so it wasn't like she was going to be challenged, but she certainly didn't withdraw because of that trivial amount.

As for vetting, who is supposed to do it? What do you look for? Have we reached the point where you have to disclose every dollar you have ever made, everybody you have ever slept with, etc., and your record must be spotless? Most of our best leaders have been deeply flawed. To be a leader now, you can be morally bereft, or bland as old dishwater, as long as you have remembered to carry the one.

[EntityX]

It isn't easy to find someone who is both a good politician and at the same has a spotless record. Actually it isn't easy to find someone who has a spotless record period. That attention is somewhat drawn to defects isn't all bad of course because it encourages us all to be free of blame.

[System_Error]

They were all probably dishonest to him but nonetheless made themselves and Obama look bad.

So it was their stupid mistake not his - they held back the info.



@Shaggy and EntityX:
Are you trying to defend these guys?

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

I did a search and found a list of appointees on Yahoo Answers. By process of elimination based on your post, the answer to your question is that the following appointees do not have tax problems.

You should acquaint yourself with the word "rhetorical".

[Shaggy Hiker]

You should acquaint yourself with the word "hyperbole"

[Shaggy Hiker]

@Shaggy and EntityX:
Are you trying to defend these guys?

Actually, I was just pondering. We really have reached a time when the appearance of flaws is enough to bar a person from appointed office, but history doesn't support this decision. Consider, if you will, a person who I greatly dislike: Idaho's own ex-senator Larry Craig. If you don't remember him, he was the senator arrested in a MN airport bathroom for soliciting gay sex. The crime was a misdemeanor with a minor fine. The senator had been a long serving, and influential proponent of a variety of powerful interests from this state. From a fundamental perspective, he really had danced with those who brought him (probably not literally, but you never know), and had been an effective representative of the people who elected him. Furthermore, people around him had figured he was gay since at least college days, so where was the surprise? Heck, he was one of the people named in the page-sex probe back in the 80's. Yet he first claimed he would resign, then stuck around for the rest of his term and didn't run for re-election.

Here was a guy who was elected by a certain group of voters, and did an effective job serving the group that elected him, and he was done in by a misdemeanor charge that was in no way related to his job performance or the job he was doing.

Thoughout history, we find examples of deeply flawed people who proved to be excellent leaders. Are we going too far in throwing people out for the appearance?

[System_Error]

Actually, I was just pondering. We really have reached a time when the appearance of flaws is enough to bar a person from appointed office, but history doesn't support this decision. Consider, if you will, a person who I greatly dislike: Idaho's own ex-senator Larry Craig. If you don't remember him, he was the senator arrested in a MN airport bathroom for soliciting gay sex. The crime was a misdemeanor with a minor fine. The senator had been a long serving, and influential proponent of a variety of powerful interests from this state. From a fundamental perspective, he really had danced with those who brought him (probably not literally, but you never know), and had been an effective representative of the people who elected him. Furthermore, people around him had figured he was gay since at least college days, so where was the surprise? Heck, he was one of the people named in the page-sex probe back in the 80's. Yet he first claimed he would resign, then stuck around for the rest of his term and didn't run for re-election.

Here was a guy who was elected by a certain group of voters, and did an effective job serving the group that elected him, and he was done in by a misdemeanor charge that was in no way related to his job performance or the job he was doing.

Thoughout history, we find examples of deeply flawed people who proved to be excellent leaders. Are we going too far in throwing people out for the appearance?

Shaggy, I think you are trying to combine personal flaws such as appearance with blatant disregard and mistakes like tax evasion. I agree with the underlying point you are making, but not to the extend of combining such things.

Here was a guy who was elected by a certain group of voters, and did an effective job serving the group that elected him, and he was done in by a misdemeanor charge that was in no way related to his job performance or the job he was doing.

This is a very good point and I agree with you. However, it also seems to be subjective. There are a few extreme liberals on this forum who would agree with your assessment (as do I), but claim that religion should not be apart of any politicians life. Do you see the correlation between what I'm saying with a religious politician and the politician who is corrupt in his own ways, but both do a satisfactory job in the eyes of those who elect them? - That's worded very poorly, but hopefully you see what I'm saying.

However, this is really beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that you don't excuse those actions. I'm not saying you should kick someone out of office or anything, but I don't think they should be defending to the point where their wrong is transformed into normal, acceptable behavior.

From a fundamental perspective, he really had danced with those who brought him (probably not literally, but you never know)

lol

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's what the criminal system is for. We are making certain people pay for crimes they will never be indicted for, let alone convicted, or pay exorbitantly for crimes that they did their time for in the eyes of the law (Craig paid his fine, but it cost him his job...and validated his reputation).

Now, it certainly could be argued that justice is different for the rich, and I suppose it could be argued that being denied office is a form of justice for cases where the law finds no winnable case, so perhaps the system is working as it should, but we should recognize that we have made a de facto penalty that is extra-legal in the sense that the people are sentenced without any legal rights.

Ya know, when I put it that way, it sounds like High School.

[homer13j]

As for vetting, who is supposed to do it? What do you look for? Have we reached the point where you have to disclose every dollar you have ever made, everybody you have ever slept with, etc., and your record must be spotless?

Only if there's an (R) after your name.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Only if there's an (R) after your name.

Really? What does the R after the name of the people in the original post stand for? Certainly isn't Republican, so what is it?

Or are you just feeling maligned?

[mendhak]

You should acquaint yourself with the word "rhetorical".

You should familiarize yourself with this: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/gradgrind.html

The usage of literal answers to rhetorical questions is often used to make or emphasize a point.

PS: It's 'hypocrite'.

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

You should familiarize yourself with this: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/gradgrind.html

The usage of literal answers to rhetorical questions is often used to make or emphasize a point.
PS: It's 'hypocrite'.

and your point was the B. Hussain Obama's other choices are better crooks than the four idiots that got caught, right?

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

PS: It's 'hypocrite'.

No, I had it right the way I wrote it, now what word rythmes with "HypoCRATS" again . . . .

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

Really? What does the R after the name of the people in the original post stand for? Certainly isn't Republican, so what is it?

Or are you just feeling maligned?

Shaggy, remember the liberal mantra "It Bush's Fault!" Say it to yourself over and over, it will make you feel better. I can't wait until the Libs realize that B. Hussian Obama is just all smoke and mirrors and that he is way over his head.


It Bush's Fault, It Bush's Fault, It Bush's Fault . . . .

[homer13j]

Or are you just feeling maligned?

Oh, I always feel maligned...

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

Ya know, when I put it that way, it sounds like High School.

So if someone "forgets" to pay taxes in the neighborhood of oh say $30,000 US, that sounds like High School Nonsense to you?? It sounds CRIMINAL to me! I don't know about you but $30,000 is a lot of money to just forget about especially for the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But I know It Bush's Fault, It Bush's Fault, It Bush's Fault . . . . .

[Shaggy Hiker]

When I want to go trolling, it is usually for fish.

$30,000 sure would be alot of money to me, but would be insignificant to some of my relatives. It's all a matter of perspective. When I was a child, I wouldn't pass up on a penny in the street. Now, I can't see that far away (not really, I have a decade or two before I can really make that joke, fortunately). I don't really know how other people perceive money, especially the wealthy, since I'm not one of them. However, I am reasonably capable with math, and can understand that for somebody who makes nine figures, $30,000 is pocket change. For some of these people, that amount of money is no more than a rounding error. While it would shock those of us who would see that as a significant percentage of our income, it also wasn't our mistake.

If you want to get outraged about it, go right ahead. If you only want to get outraged at Democrats, again, go right ahead. After all, you have plenty of company. I won't be joining you, though.

[demotivater]

How anyone could defend these people is beyond me.

[Thomas.Fredrickson]

How anyone could defend these people is beyond me.

There are some here who feel that all this talk about these tax dodgers sounds "like High School". God forbid if a cabinet appointee of former President George W. Bush had similar issues, wow CNN and MSNBC would have had around the clock coverage. But since it involves the messiah is is relegated to the back pages here on good old VBF!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oh quit being such a martyr. Unless you really are Mark Gambo, you've been here for less that a month, for one thing.

As for "some here", that was me, and I wasn't talking about "these tax dodgers". If you really understood that post to be talking about that, then stick around and your mind will be expanded a bit as your understanding broadens. If you actually just wanted to distort my position because it was convenient to your martyrdom, then say that, don't beat around the bush. Anybody who has been around here for a few years pretty much knows my position on most topics and I won't be shy with you, either.

Aside from that, I would like to retract my comment on hyperbole, as you clearly are an expert in that area. I'm sorry you feel so abused by the country that chose to elect Barak Obama. Perhaps your time will come around again. I hope not, but all things are possible. Still, at this point, you have spent the last week venting over something. I applaud you for actually getting the World Events forum active, as nobody had been posting much of anything for months, but why don't you quit with the veiled references and third-hand comments and start a thread where you talk about your opinion rather than this passive aggressive line of dung. Heck, I wasn't even sure what passive-aggressive meant until I saw the threads you've started. You sure seem angry about something, but I can't quite say what it is, so why don't you tell us.