Obama hires tax cheat to loot Treasury & export jobs by piratenews

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Thought I heard something about him not bothering to pay taxes on an employee of his who also happened to be an illegal alien, too.

So far, it sounds like this guy definitely needs to get bounced.

They're saying that when he was audited and it was pointed out that he was in arrears, he DID pay *part* of his back taxes, to which all involved seemingly said, "Okay, that's fine." Which, it ain't.

And this is the guy they want to oversee Treasury? Really?

Bad, bad, BAAAAAAADD idea. So far, we already know he's not good with his own money, and dishonest about it to boot. Sound like the guy you want in charge of OUR money?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:41 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thought I heard something about him not bothering to pay taxes on an employee of his who also happened to be an illegal alien, too.

So far, it sounds like this guy definitely needs to get bounced.

They're saying that when he was audited and it was pointed out that he was in arrears, he DID pay *part* of his back taxes, to which all involved seemingly said, "Okay, that's fine." Which, it ain't.

And this is the guy they want to oversee Treasury? Really?

Bad, bad, BAAAAAAADD idea. So far, we already know he's not good with his own money, and dishonest about it to boot. Sound like the guy you want in charge of OUR money?

Mike

Kwicko, the beers are on me if we ever meet in person.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 3:59 PM

DREAMTROVE

I'm beginning to think that Obama might be a genius. The person who discovered the tax cheats, and leaked them was almost certainly Obama. I'm beginning to like this guy.

The Clintonistas told him who he could nominate and sent them forward to battle republican opposition, and it looks like Obama is flanking them with a sniper rifle and picking off his own nominees one by one.

That has class. If I'm right, and I think I am, then hats off to the guy. This could get interesting.

Here's my next prediction: America's next ally in the GWOT: Iran.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm beginning to think that Obama might be a genius. The person who discovered the tax cheats, and leaked them was almost certainly Obama. I'm beginning to like this guy.

The Clintonistas told him who he could nominate and sent them forward to battle republican opposition, and it looks like Obama is flanking them with a sniper rifle and picking off his own nominees one by one.

That has class. If I'm right, and I think I am, then hats off to the guy. This could get interesting.

Here's my next prediction: America's next ally in the GWOT: Iran.

Maybe we should start calling Obama "Fumbles".

.
google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=robot+chicken+
g.i.+joe+sniper+fumbles&oe=

(Link spaced so as not to be 42" wide on your browser...Delete the space after "video." and after "chicken+". Enjoy.)

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:49 PM

Quote:
Kwicko, the beers are on me if we ever meet in person.

Kirk, there's much we disagree on, but I would never throw a beer at you! :) Besides, that would be alcohol abuse.

I like Obama, I voted for him, but hell, man - I've got my limits!

I was really, REALLY hoping that (a) Nancy Pelosi would get her ass bounced out of the Speaker's seat, (b) Harry Reid would get his ass bounced out of the Senate Majority Leader's seat, (c) Eric Holder would get HIS ass bounced out of the Attorney General's position (might still happen), and (d) this douchebag of a pick for SecTreas would get his ass bounced all the way to the federal pokey (might still happen, but doubtful in the extreme. The trend these days seems to be one of failing upward.)

Sorry, but it's crap like this that is what's WRONG with Washington. I firmly believe that there's nothing wrong with this country that can't be fixed by what's right with this country, but shit like this is saying that the solution to the problems is to put the problem-children in charge.

It doesn't mean I'm withdrawing my support of Obama; I still have "hope" (maybe I'm a dope for thinking we're still salvageable...) and I still want "change", but so far, I'm seeing damn little evidence of either one taking hold.

Makes me a bit angry, it does. [Grrrrrrr...]

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 4:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Raises hand - I think I remember posting that Obama was far more conservative than most people knew. That the difference between Obama and McCain was that Obama was push-able, whereas McCain wasn't, and that that was the reason to vote for Obama. That the work didn't end at Obama's election, it began. And that we will have to push Obama. every. step. forward.

One thing gives me giggles, though. (It probably belongs on the other thread, but ...) I can't help but imagine how George Will, William Kristol, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer were having to choke on their bile during the dinner.

Having to deal with the outcome they hated and feared the most. And smile.

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

ETA Oh, and Rush pretending like he was important enough to invite. Talk about a power whore. It's obvious he has no principles.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:08 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
The Clintonistas told him who he could nominate and sent them forward to battle republican opposition, and it looks like Obama is flanking them with a sniper rifle and picking off his own nominees one by one.

That's not Obama, that's Biden.

It's his tactical SOP to politically kneecap folks he don't like by proxy without leaving any backtrail pointing to him, always has been.

Course, he mighta taught the rookie some of that, too - but either way, that has Biden writen all over it to me.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:

Raises hand - I think I remember posting that Obama was far more conservative than most people knew. That the difference between Obama and McCain was that Obama was push-able, whereas McCain wasn't, and that that was the reason to vote for Obama. That the work didn't end at Obama's election, it began. And that we will have to push Obama. every. step. forward.

True, Rue, true.

Quote:
One thing gives me giggles, though. (It probably belongs on the other thread, but ...) I can't help but imagine how George Will, William Kristol, David Brooks, and Charles Krauthammer were having to choke on their bile during the dinner.

Having to deal with the outcome they hated and feared the most. And smile.

Yup. How'd you like to have been a fly on THAT wall?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 5:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yup. How'd you like to have been a fly on THAT wall?"

Yeah. Who wouldn't want that ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:57 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem,

Could be, could be. I noticed in the campaign that Barack had that natural healthy suspicion that black people have that prevents them from being polyanna, and appointing someone as VP who might assassinate them to get in power. That fact is why Biden is there, instead of Hillary. Note that JFK didn't have that kind of sense.

There's definitely more than meets the eyes.

The rest of this page, I don't think we're on the same page, I'm not sure which election you guys were watching. President is not a very powerful position. The democratic party holds the power, it was always Clintonistas that were manipulating their way in, and they definitely wanted Hillary as VP. Not as the candidate, because that would revive whitewater et al, but as the Cheney, she could sneak in. So, they've lost at least on round, I'll grant they've won a lot of rounds, but that's entirely to be expected.

If McCain weren't pushable, that would've been worth voting for. The real reason to vote for McCain would be because it was a vote in favor of gridlock. For you Cato fans, you know what I'm talking about.

But the election was always game set match. It wasn't like there was any other outcome. I'm just glad that Hillary didn't exercise her second amendment rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:41 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

"Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he still hoped Geithner could be confirmed on Inauguration Day, asking senators for unanimous consent to skirt rules and schedule a hearing as early as Friday.

“These errors were not intentional; they were honest mistakes,” Baucus said after he and other committee members met with Geithner behind closed doors on Tuesday."

Okay, I'm not sure what's scarier; the idea of a tax evader as Treasury Secretary, or the idea that the Treasury Secretary doesn't know enough to file his tax returns properly(or at least get some help preparing them).

You also have to consider that Mr. Geithner either lied, or managed to forget about this when he was being vetted for the job. Again, not qualities one would want in the Treasury Secretary.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he still hoped Geithner could be confirmed on Inauguration Day, asking senators for unanimous consent to skirt rules and schedule a hearing as early as Friday.

“These errors were not intentional; they were honest mistakes,” Baucus said after he and other committee members met with Geithner behind closed doors on Tuesday."

Okay, I'm not sure what's scarier; the idea of a tax evader as Treasury Secretary, or the idea that the Treasury Secretary doesn't know enough to file his tax returns properly(or at least get some help preparing them).

You also have to consider that Mr. Geithner either lied or managed to forget about this when he was being vetted for the job. Again, not qualities one would want in the Treasury Secretary.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

THANK you. Pretty much the point I've been trying to make.

And it pains me to say it, but I pretty much have to agree with 'Rappy on this one, too - he asked how we'd have reacted if it were Joe the Plumber who hadn't paid $40k in taxes.

My take is, this is MUCH WORSE than J-the-P's been behind on his taxes. 1) Joe was $1300 behind, 2) He was behind on his LAST YEAR'S taxes, not the ones from back in '01 and '02, 3) he sure as hell wasn't picked to run the Treasury!

So, yeah, if you were willing to bitch and moan about Joe (and I was), then you have to suck it up and admit that Geithner really does need to go. In my view, he may well need to go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, to not forget to pay taxes on it...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:03 PM

WHOZIT

Liberals, send me your tears

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The problem stemmed from his time as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund. During his three years at the IMF, Geithner failed to pay his payroll taxes, which were not withheld like his income taxes.

Tax experts blame Geithner's error on the IMF's atypical tax arrangement. Because it's an international organization, it's exempt from withholding employees' payroll taxes.

U.S. employees get additional salary to cover the IMF's share of their payroll taxes. They're responsible for paying the tax, considered a "self-employment tax," as part of their personal tax returns.

"Usually, all this stuff is taken out of your paycheck, so this particular arrangement is unusual," said George Yin, a tax professor at the University of Virginia Law School and former chief of staff for the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. "It would be much more troubling if he didn't understand some basic principle of economics."

... (he failed to file taxes accountants say) ... because the IMF's tax process is confusing even for professional accountants. The IMF distributes a W-2 form that leaves empty the box for payroll tax obligations, a fact that likely led Geithner to assume he was free from obligation.

"If he got a W-2, it's not something that would jump out at you," said Bryan Camp, a tax professor at the Texas Tech University School of Law.

Bill Gruen, an accountant who handles the filings of several United Nations, World Bank and IMF employees, said Geithner was probably confused by tax software that failed to flag the additional payroll taxes.

"It's not automatic -- even on my $4,000 software -- that the program would calculate a self-employment tax," Gruen said."

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:42 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem stemmed from his time as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund. During his three years at the IMF, Geithner failed to pay his payroll taxes, which were not withheld like his income taxes...

From the same article. (Rue, will you ever learn to provide cites?)

"The IMF requires employees to fill out an annual tax allowance request worksheet to get the extra income, and gives employees both a personnel manual and quarterly and year-end wage statements detailing their tax obligations. While Geithner signed the statement, he still failed to pay up."

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=17468&cat=topnews

So either he can't follow the instructions in the manual he received, forgot about the statement he signed, or forgot to provide the instructions he signed for to his accountant (if he used one). Or maybe he figured he could get away without paying?

Not impressed. An IRS employee who failed to properly pay his taxes would be fired on the spot. Doesn't seem too much to ask the same of the man who'd be his boss.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:

So either he can't follow the instructions in the manual he received, forgot about the statement he signed, or forgot to provide the instructions he signed for to his accountant (if he used one). Or maybe he figured he could get away without paying?

Not impressed. An IRS employee who failed to properly pay his taxes would be fired on the spot. Doesn't seem too much to ask the same of the man who'd be his boss.

Right there with ya on this one, Geezer.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer

You found the article didn't you ? No problem, right ?

But, the reason I don't usually provide links are these:
1) NEW articles have a tendency to disappear quickly into the archives, often in less than a week, making them only available for those who are willing to pay. Posting the links is useless and ends up leading nowhere.
2) NEW articles are often co-published on-line through several sources - the same AP article for example can be found in the NYT, the WashPost, BostonHerald etc, making any single link irrelevant.
3) NEW and OLD articles share the problem of being posted and reposted, making it difficult to find the original source (and BTW I've been hounded for not posting the 'right' link).
4) OLD articles are often only available through secondary sources.

It comes down to this: links are ephemeral things. It is much easier and more certain to find a source (even if it is secondary or a cache) given an extended quote, than it is to find a source given a short quote, or no quote, and a link.

So, can we drop your bogus complaint ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Mike

I'd hope a guy who got embarassed by his federal filing would make a point of simplifying the tax code.

But mostly, I find the explanation reasonable. Where I work we have technicians and chemists, lawyers and office helpers, janitors and statisticians ... I wouldn't expect the CEO to be able to do every job in the place, no matter how specialized or obscure.

Would you ?

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

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

You found the article didn't you ? No problem, right ?

No. It's lack of courtesy on your part; both to the original source and to the folk who read it here.

Quote:
But, the reason I don't usually provide links are these:
1) NEW articles have a tendency to disappear quickly into the archives, often in less than a week, making them only available for those who are willing to pay. Posting the links is useless and ends up leading nowhere.

Sometimes, but not often if the source is an established one. Anyway, you should indicate where it's from so folks have some idea of its reliability. If I can find it, you could cite it.

Quote:
2) NEW articles are often co-published on-line through several sources - the same AP article for example can be found in the NYT, the WashPost, BostonHerald etc, making any single link irrelevant.

Generally, providing the original source is best, but providing any link would at least indicate it's not just something you made up. Besides, most sources would like you to at least give them credit for their work.

Quote:
3) NEW and OLD articles share the problem of being posted and reposted, making it difficult to find the original source (and BTW I've been hounded for not posting the 'right' link).
4) OLD articles are often only available through secondary sources.

If you can find a source to quote, you must have been able to find the website you quoted it from, so you should be able to provide a link. If you're quoting from printed material, you should provide the name of the article/book/etc. and the author's name.

Quote:
So, can we drop your bogus complaint ?

Hardly bogus. If you want to back up what you're saying with other folk's words, you should provide cites; both to give them credit for their work, and to give us the opportunity to know where the stuff you're quoting comes from.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:42 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Mike

I'd hope a guy who got embarassed by his federal filing would make a point of simplifying the tax code.

The Treasury Secretary has no control over the tax code. That is up to Congress, and I can tell you from 36 years of experience with tax law that they don't listen to Treasury.

Quote:
But mostly, I find the explanation reasonable. Where I work we have technicians and chemists, lawyers and office helpers, janitors and statisticians ... I wouldn't expect the CEO to be able to do every job in the place, no matter how specialized or obscure.

But you'd expect him to be able to handle stuff everyone does, like get a drivers license or file his tax return correctly, or get professional help if he had doubts about his ability.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

You found the article didn't you ? No problem, right ?

No. It's lack of courtesy on your part; both to the original source and to the folk who read it here.

Quote:
But, the reason I don't usually provide links are these:
1) NEW articles have a tendency to disappear quickly into the archives, often in less than a week, making them only available for those who are willing to pay. Posting the links is useless and ends up leading nowhere.
Sometimes, but not often if the source is an established one. Anyway, you should indicate where it's from so folks have some idea of its reliability. If I can find it, you could cite it.
Quote:
2) NEW articles are often co-published on-line through several sources - the same AP article for example can be found in the NYT, the WashPost, BostonHerald etc, making any single link irrelevant.

Generally, providing the original source is best, but providing any link would at least indicate it's not just something you made up. Besides, most sources would like you to at least give them credit for their work.
Quote:
3) NEW and OLD articles share the problem of being posted and reposted, making it difficult to find the original source (and BTW I've been hounded for not posting the 'right' link).
4) OLD articles are often only available through secondary sources.
If you can find a source to quote, you must have been able to find the website you quoted it from, so you should be able to provide a link. If you're quoting from printed material, you should provide the name of the article/book/etc. and the author's name.

Quote:
So, can we drop your bogus complaint ?

Hardly bogus. If you want to back up what you're saying with other folk's words, you should provide cites; both to give them credit for their work, and to give us the opportunity to know where the stuff you're quoting comes from.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, Geez, in the interest of fairness... Do you have cites for the quotes you've used in your reply?

Heck, PN gives a sideways cite to his claim of Pelosi's demanding a "C-141", but if you actually read his "cite", there's no mention whatsoever of any such demand, or any such aircraft.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:17 PM