"I Hope Obama Fails"

[eisely]

There is one huge difference between the controversy over Clarence Thomas and Geithner. In Thomas' case it was "he said - she said" and the facts of what was alleged were in dispute. In Geithner's case the facts are not in dispute. We will now have a knowing willful tax cheat for secretary of the treasury. If this were a republican administration trying to select and nominate a cabinet officer, Geithner would never have been nominated because he would have been crucified by the media.

 

I have been self employed in the past, and I consult with multi national corporations every day on their taxes. That is what I do for a living. I have also used Turbo Tax for years to do my own taxes. Turbo Tax will detect and inform you of this particular "error" and you have to override the software to submit a fraudulent return on the self employment tax issue.

 

Geithner had to apply to the IMF (for which he worked as an independent contractor) for the cash to pay the taxes and he signed those applications stating that he understood that he had to pay the taxes. So he was even reimbursed for the taxes he willfully did not pay. There is absolutely no excuse for what Geithner did. And he even got the penalties waived when we was caught by the IRS for the years he was audited!!

[vol_scouter]

All due respects to Beavah, for whom I have the greatest respect, I tend to agree with Eisely. Geithner should be the Secretary of the Treasury. I my view, what he did was purposeful and therefore dishonest. If we know that he is dishonest from the beginning, how can we be expected to trust him? Surely out of ~300,000,000 citizens there is some else who would do as well or better than what I would characterize as dishonest.

[Beavah]

Yah, eisley, are yeh really sure about all that?

 

Geithner was Director of da IMF's Policy Department, eh? That's not an "independent contractor." He was a full-out, senior executive employee of the IMF, not self-employed.

 

I think you're assuming he was an independent contractor because they didn't do withholding, eh? But my understandin' is that the IMF is one of those oddball, special-case organizations. Even though he was employed in the U.S., they do not do withholding because they're an international organization with special status by treaty.

 

Now I wonder how many accountants and software programs would actually know to look for the special status of the International Monetary Fund? My guess is "very few" for accountants and "none" for software programs. It seems like you didn't. Remember, the only issue for Geithner was FICA, eh? Not income tax. He paid his income tax. And from da looks of it, the IMF kicks U.S. employees an odd "tax equalization payment" to offset U.S. taxes (so as to treat all employees across jurisdictions the same).

 

How many regular accountants and tax programs have to deal with that mess? One professional accountant said even his $4K software doesn't flag it, let alone TurboTax

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17468.html

 

That's why it's credible as a mistake, eh?

 

I generally agree with vol, eh? There are lots of bright people in da U.S. Can't figure why we need Hillary for State, for example, though I figure she'll do OK. Plus it gets her out of da Senate . But in this particular case, there really are only a handful of experienced folks who have had direct and recent contact with the current situation, who are well versed, and who are trusted/respected by all of the players. If the market madness were a year out, we could spend time on it, or on havin' a new person come in and learn and get up to speed. The house is on fire now, though.

 

I similarly respect Obama's decision to leave Secretary Gates in place for the same reason. Yah, yeh might say that there are 300 million other folks, but the same bit applies. Wars on multiple fronts, high tempo ops, immediate needs. There's only a handful of people who could fit the bill.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[vol_scouter]

Thank you for the explanation. Too bad our news media died this past year. With that understanding and your sense that the guy has the requisite tools, I will have to change my mind.

 

Nobody wants the economy to sink into a depression. I just don't want a further socialist republic.

 

I am still waiting for the left to scream about the bombing of a sovreign nation that is an ally to boot. Oh, I forgot. He is a liberal so he was justified whereas a conservative would be skewered.

 

Unlike some of my friends, I will not have a bumper sticker saying "He's not my president" despite being concerned about the direction of the country.

 

On a positive note. I applaud Obama for preventing his staff from getting raises and banning many of the lobbyist practices. He is doing some things well. Much of the issues that many of us are most concerned about he has not yet dealt. So I may end up cheering him on many fronts. I hope so.

[eisely]

Nevertheless Geithner signed statements on the application for the extra cash stating that he knew had to pay the tax and would do so. Perhaps he was not an independent contractor as I understand it, but he did sign, and he did accept the extra cash and kept it. He is still a tax cheat.

[mmhardy]

Don't think for a New York minute that Rush really has a deep caring for conservative causes. He's a broadcaster. His success depends on bringing an audiance to listen to the ads. He found a nitch that works and has been exploting it for a dozen years.

 

The top radio shows in the US, 2008, are; The Rush Limbaugh Show - ~14.25m. Morning Edition - ~13.5m. All Things Considered - ~13.5m The Sean Hannity Show - ~13.25m

 

His show is nothing but audio porn for the politicos. If his rankings slip then his format will change.

[vol_scouter]

Interesting. The top four shows are 2 conservative and 2 liberal. Obviously, there is no need for a fairness doctrine.

[SR540Beaver]

vol - "I am still waiting for the left to scream about the bombing of a sovreign nation that is an ally to boot. Oh, I forgot. He is a liberal so he was justified whereas a conservative would be skewered."

 

In all fairness, the vast majority of liberals (not all, but moost) were highly supportive of Bush on the war in Afghanistan and getting bin Laden. Where they disagreed was his step back from that mission for his invasion of Iraq. If chasing bin Laden into out "ally" Pakistan furthers the mission of trscking him down and making him pay, I think almost any American will support that.....regardless who is president.

[Lisabob]

Gee vol, I dunno about your claim re: the media rolling over and playing dead. This morning on Face the Nation there was pretty detailed discussion about the bombing of Pakistan. I didn't see Meet the Press but I expect they discussed it too. It was covered on NPR on Friday. I found this article on MSNBC's website regarding the attacks: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28811723/ It was discussed in the NY Times yesterday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those some pretty typical examples of press outlets that are often derisively labeled as liberal? And yet, they all seem to have covered the same story you are claiming that they are ignoring.

 

And, just in case we're forgetting, this policy of cross-border raids into Pakistan was in place during the last year of the Bush admin as well, and caused considerable concern then too. So, I don't see where you can say that there has been no coverage of these actions and blame it on a "liberal" media conspiracy.

 

That said, I do tend to agree with you about the deplorable state of "reporting" on the cable news networks much of the time. But that's not a partisan thing, as it is easy to find examples of poor news coverage on both Fox and MSNBC (either side of the political spectrum) and CNN too, and it has been going on for a good bit longer than the last year. But if you look at the more serious news shows, you will get more serious discussion of real issues.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Don't think for a New York minute that Rush really has a deep caring for conservative causes.

[GernBlansten]

I'm not sure what conservative values Rush demonstrated when he got busted for drug dealing and doctor shopping. Or when he got busted for caring a Viagra prescription under another persons name when returning from a "vacation" in the Dominican Republic, known for its sex vacations. Or when he had to go to rehab to get off his addiction to pain killers. Or when we lost his hearing due his abuse of Oxycotin.

 

Yes, he is a beacon of conservative values.

[scoutldr]

At least he didn't do it in the Oval Office while holding the highest office of the land, lie to the American people on national TV and expect everyone to ignore it as "boys will be boys."

[GernBlansten]

Which radio show host are you referring to?

I'm talking about the conservative torch bearer who had 4 failed marriages yet pontificates over the airwaves about the sanctity of marriage.

 

Really guys, if you are gonna follow a pied piper, at least have him dance to his own music.

[Narraticong]

I think we can all agree that the current financial situation is the number one priority in our country. Mr. Obama has pretty much declared his intent to get this mess straightened out. No politics, just solutions. His administration will focus on working with both sides of the aisle to get our country back on track. As a conservative, I am 100% behind this idea and look to him for leadership.

 

But within his first week in office, Mr. Obama has made it a priority to change Mr. Bush's Exec Order prohibiting money being sent abroad to fund abortions. When we need to be focusing on our own economy and how to cut spending, Mr. Obama has opted to spend more money overseas. In my wildest dreams I can not see how this would be a first week priority?

 

Unless... it is partisan politicking, or paying back those who helped him get in office. Both of those options are rich in the tradition of previous administrations. It leaves me still looking for "CHANGE".

[frankj]

Further to what Narriticong was saying about executive orders, last week BHO issued one that puts on hold GWB's exec order which lifted the ban on offshore drilling. In other words, the ban is still in place, while the new administration studies the problem.

 

This is not how you help fix the domestic economy. It is not how you take steps to insure energy security for this country. It is a good way to signal other oil producing countries that we aren't serious about developing our own resources -- go ahead and raise prices. It is a great way to tell environmentalists that if they yelp loud enough, and long enough, a Democrat admin will give them what they want.

 

And, finally, delaying things while the Admin "studies" the problem, might be a great way to wring political contributions out of potential lessees, producers, suppliers, etc. This is not change and it not the bold action so many people blathered about. It is the same old, same old.

 

This is why I said I wanted him to fail. If he defines success as halting energy exploration, I want him to fail.