Jump to content

One Advantage of Frequent Cabinet Turnover


David

Recommended Posts

I agree that this seems to be a rather different situation than Geithner. The former exapmle could at least be given some benefit of the doubt, but hard to see how the Daschle omissions could be purely accidental.

 

 

Link to comment

"He also had reductions to charitable contributions totaling about $15,000 over the three years covered,"

 

He made up deductions???????????????????

Link to comment
"He also had reductions to charitable contributions totaling about $15,000 over the three years covered,"

 

He made up deductions???????????????????

The used underwear he donated to Goodwill were reappraised.
Link to comment
Jerry Johnston

Yes, if they're not honest before being in office you have to wonder how honest they'll be while in office.

Link to comment
Yes, if they're not honest before being in office you have to wonder how honest they'll be while in office.

 

....and attention to detail, that should be kind of important if you're going to be Secretary of Something-or-the-other....

 

 

Link to comment

Well let’s see……

He cheats…..

He lies…….

He gets away with it………

Yup. Washington is his kind of place!

 

Peace

 

PS, Start a garden.

 

Link to comment

Ironic how we are in an era of "transfer of wealth" but those making the decisions are not transferring theirs.

 

So can we claim the Geithner/Dashcle deductible omission on our returns?

Link to comment

...but, they are fighting for a just cause. They're on the side of truth and all that's good.

 

Those facts alone make it worth overlooking a little larceny.

Link to comment

It seems I might remember a 60 minutes segment on this guy regarding the improper use of corporate and charter jets...

 

This type of illegal activity just doesn't seem to cause outrage anymore.

 

 

Link to comment
Bob, how's the world out on the left coast?

Any thing wierd?

California is ground zero for the weird. It is tested here before spreading to the rest of the country.

Link to comment

I don't understand how a Senator has enough free time to hold a second position with a private company for 1 MILLION dollars a year. Shouldn't his political responsibilites keep him pretty busy? What could he possibly be doing for that company that makes him worth 1 million per year?!?!? I have a few ideas but none of them are particularly ethical.

 

The car service and the consulting income were received in connection with Daschle's business relationship with InterMedia Partners of Englewood, Colo. Daschle is a limited partner and chairman of its executive advisory board. He is also an independent consultant to InterMedia Advisors LLP of New York City.

 

Hindery founded InterMedia Partners, a private equity firm, in 1988. Daschle was paid $1 million annually for his services, the committee said. Daschle's 2007 tax return did not include one of his monthly payments of $88,333.

 

Link to comment
Harry_Wilshusen
I don't understand how a Senator has enough free time to hold a second position with a private company for 1 MILLION dollars a year. Shouldn't his political responsibilites keep him pretty busy? What could he possibly be doing for that company that makes him worth 1 million per year?!?!? I have a few ideas but none of them are particularly ethical.

 

 

 

 

 

He earned(?) this after leaving public service(?).

 

 

Harry

Link to comment
...but, they are fighting for a just cause. They're on the side of truth and all that's good.

 

Those facts alone make it worth overlooking a little larceny.

 

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I was hoping they would be different...

Link to comment

Hope?

Isn't that a village in Arkansas?

 

19th Century Politician

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,

all of the people some of the time,"

21st Century Politician

"You can fool all of the people all of the time"

 

20th Century cartoonist

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

Link to comment

It's all just a ploy to "restore the American people’s trust in their government by making government more transparent." :eek:

 

Wait 'till the flood gates really open.

 

I'm sending in my resume now for a couple of these positions. Thanks for the help, David!

Link to comment

Folks--

 

Though the temptation may be great, please refrain from political comments "in which a political party, administration, individual, office, or other identifying element is spoken of in disparaging terms." If you're in doubt as to whether your comments may be over the line, I'd refer you to Fernando's Thoroughly Cogent Thesis on What Constitutes "Political" Comment . As a general rule, if you find yourself wondering about whether you should or should not post a comment, the right answer is generally "should not."

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
It's the same test we give to folks for their concealed weapon permit.

You have to get 70% in center mass......

 

:Cool:

 

Cool. I can do that easily.

Strong hand? Weak hand? Prone?

Link to comment

Mike, some of the replies clearly crossed the line, but I'm honestly not sure if mine did. I'm not clear on where the line is, so please lock it if I stepped over it. :grin:

Link to comment

The line is in the middle, and if that's so, then you gotta determine where the middle is, but since the middle is gone, then where is the line, and who has crossed it?

 

MB>

Link to comment

 

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."

 

The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.

Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."

 

"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News.

 

Yes, he did screw up. But when was the last time you heard any politician make that simple admission?

 

I apologize in advance for making a positive comment about government.

 

 

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is taking responsibility for mistakes in the handling of the tax controversy that led to Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee to be health and human services secretary, saying: "I screwed up."

 

The president did a series of back-to-back television interviews in which the subject of failed nominees was a top subject.

Obama told NBC "I'm frustrated with myself" for unintentionally sending a message that there are "two sets of rules" for paying taxes, "one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks."

 

"I take responsibility for this mistake," he told Fox News.

 

Yes, he did screw up. But when was the last time you heard any politician make that simple admission?

 

I apologize in advance for making a positive comment about government.

 

 

Does this mean we will see a different treasury secretary?

Link to comment
Harry_Wilshusen
Does this mean we will see a different treasury secretary?

 

Unlikely. For one thing, Daschle's transgressions were far worse.

 

D**n right they were worse.

 

Causing global warming being driven around in a Limo.

 

Harry

Link to comment
Does this mean we will see a different treasury secretary?

 

Unlikely. For one thing, Daschle's transgressions were far worse.

 

And there I was thinking that a sin was a sin no matter how bad...

 

We should have a new Treasury secretary too...

 

Toss the whole lot of them out!

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two
Does this mean we will see a different treasury secretary?

 

Unlikely. For one thing, Daschle's transgressions were far worse.

 

So a little tax evasion is okay, but more will get you in trouble? I'll remember that if I ever make a "mistake" on my return!! :)

Link to comment

Unlikely. For one thing, Daschle's transgressions were far worse.

 

I don't see one any worse than the other. They both KNEW they were cheating, just because one had more #'s, IMHO.

Link to comment
They both KNEW they were cheating,

No, we don't KNOW anything, and that's just the point. In Geitner's case the error was rather common and it's quite possible that it was an oversight where in the Daschle case such a claim is a lot less credible. In the case where an omission was likely intentional the candidate was rejected and in the case where it likely was not the candidate was accepted. The two examples are not the same thing.

 

Unless you are of the 'an error is an error is an error, and any error is automatically cheating' persuasion, in which case I doubt that most on this forum could withstand having ten year's worth of tax returns closely scrutinized and not a single transgression found, much less many of the accusers in Washington. We have a lot of people in glass houses throwing stones here.

 

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
I find it ironically sad that his unreported income exceeds my reported income.

 

I find it ironically sad that the taxes on his unreported income exceeds my reported income.

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two
In Geitner's case the error was rather common and it's quite possible that it was an oversight....

 

According to the NY Times. "the IMF does pay its

American workers an amount equal to an employer"s half of the payroll taxes, with the expectation that they will use that to pay the I.R.S."

 

So, he signed numerous documents stating that he understood the

arrangement, then not only didn't pay his taxes, but he pocketed the additional cash that was given to him to pay his taxes."

 

You really think "...that it was an oversight"?

 

BTW, I have been audited by the IRS three times and the only "mistakes" they found were that I did not take some deductions to which I was entitled. :(

Link to comment
They both KNEW they were cheating,

No, we don't KNOW anything, and that's just the point. In Geitner's case the error was rather common and it's quite possible that it was an oversight where in the Daschle case such a claim is a lot less credible. In the case where an omission was likely intentional the candidate was rejected and in the case where it likely was not the candidate was accepted. The two examples are not the same thing.

 

 

 

Unless you are of the 'an error is an error is an error, and any error is automatically cheating' persuasion, in which case I doubt that most on this forum could withstand having ten year's worth of tax returns closely scrutinized and not a single transgression found, much less many of the accusers in Washington. We have a lot of people in glass houses throwing stones here.

 

 

 

Thank you for your accurate thoughts on some of the posts. They would be funny except until you realize that some of them really believe what they write.

 

Very sad!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...