»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
A Taxing Situation...
| The Alley |
|
A Taxing Situation... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
What is up with Obama's selection of cabinet appointees? Last week, the Senate confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, but only after days of controversy over the fact that the man who would oversee the Internal Revenue Service had only belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes. Bill Richardson bowed out, too, though his difficulties didn't involve personal taxes. The New Mexico governor, who was Obama's first choice for commerce secretary, withdrew amid a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors. Daschle's failure to fully pay his taxes from 2005 through 2007 had been increasing since they came to light last Friday and he has removed his name for consideration. Killefer, an executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co., had been chosen by Obama to serve in two roles: as the first chief performance officer in a White House and as a deputy director at the Office of Management and Budget. When Obama announced Killefer to much fanfare in early January, The Associated Press reported that the District of Columbia government had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. When questioned about Daschle's resignation, Obama stated.. "It's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules — you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," (He's obviously never heard of Charlie Rangel) What makes that statement seem strange is that Obama acknowledged that he had been made aware of the various tax pecadillos before he nominated them and still went ahead and nominated them, making it possible for them and him to be embarrassed by the results. Where does he think he is....Chicago??? |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
 That was my EXACT thought, "where does he think he is, Chicago?!" |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
 the guys on KSAL Radio today said, in part, that our Governor Sebelius of Kansas may be looked at by Obama for the chair of Health & Human Resources. They followed that up with "and we're pretty dang sure she's going over her tax forms right now..."Can you see any of us getting by with stuff like that??? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What I am completely confused by is the sequence of events that make no sense to me. (1) Obama selects these people. (2) Obama is informed they have issues (3) Obama nominates them anyway. (4) 3 of the 4 resign when the investigation commences (5) The White House says there was no request or pressure to have them resign (6) Obama states ""It's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules — you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes" HUH? Will someone with a smarter mind than I (and I'll acknowledge there are many) please explain that one to me? If one were to take number 6, move it to number one and then delete all of others, I would understand. As it is, it sounds like Obama has no idea what he is saying to cover his tracks. Yes, he went on the air to say he was sorry but the question is - sorry for what? For selecting them in the first place? For ignoring the negative reports on them? For not bouncing them after the reports came to light? What in the world can justify that last sentence? This is the man we are now told to put our confidence in. I see nothing about this situation which would inspire confidence at all. Obama has been very eloquent about how he is going to "clean up" government and the White House and something like this makes those speeches look like nothing but pure rhetoric....but, then again, Pelosi was going to "clean up the swamp" in congress and look how that's worked out. I still want Obama to succeed but I also want him to be the man he says he is and the man he is supposed to be. I'm seeing very little evidence of that so far. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The President needs guys like you, who want him to succeed and who are willing to point out the contradictions between what he says and what he does. The country needs guys like you and Denise and the rest of you who want the country to work and who won't be happy with less than that. There may be something wrong with the vetting process, I don't know. This process to me feels different than the process during the last administration, when people working for the industries they were supposed to be regulating were often put in charge of them and were confirmed over opposition complaints. It doesn't feel different enough to me for my comfort level. Dashiel should have had to wait two years after leaving the lobbying business before having been offered the job. I'd want to hear more about this business with the car rentals. I'd want to know about his qualifications and I'd like to hear him have hearings. I'd like to think that the President would be able to present a better case. Let's see what he can do to keep the tent open and inclusive enough to keep the rain off everyone's back. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I thank you for your comments...sincerely. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's interesting that some of our more vocal members who never fail to show up in threads that are anti-conservative or pro-liberal find reasons to take a hiatus when threads like this arise....which makes me appreciate you even more, Bob. Ar least you are willing to look at both sides, even when one side may be disappointing. Best to you, sir.... |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
They're out gathering up their own links, I would guess... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't think anyone is likely to consider me either anti-conservative or pro-liberal. Some, however, might want to throw me in that "more vocal" group.  Still, I'm not one to make a mountain out of a mole hill, either. Anyone here willing to call up the IRS and ask them to audit you? I suspect most people who do anything more advanced than take the standard deduction would just as soon not have their return looked at too closely. Not because they intentionally did something wrong, of course, but just because seven out of ten people audited end up paying more when the IRS gets through with them. Less than one in twenty get money back. These things are regrettable, to be sure. Compared to the issues we've faced in the recent past and the problems we have yet to face, a few semi-controversial picks for the cabinet isn't likely to get me too stirred. Or . . . too vocal. I heard a great story the other night, Mike. It seems, in heaven, they have clocks for every person throughout history. The hands of the clocks only move, however, when the person assigned to it tells a lie. Mother Teresa's clock was still set to high midnight, with hands that had never stirred. The hands on Honest Abe's clock had only moved twice. And Bush's? Someone was using it as a ceiling fan. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks, Mike. Nobody has a monopoly on truth, This was brought home today for me when I was reading a collection of essays by Greg Palast, the Journalist. Among a series of essays about the causes of the Iraq War and generally Liberal things, I found some pieces that really did a number on one of my Liberal heros, Bill Richardson — an uncomfortable eye opener, and some pieces that talked about how economic forces tended to push political forces around, Liberal and Conservative alike. Some of these pieces made sense for me about the Iraq War in ways that a straightforward Blame the Conservatives Scenerio simply did not. I don't want to go into this stuff here, since the thread is about taxes, but you might find some of the stuff of interest. Armed Madhouse is the title, and since you might want to pick and choose among the essays, you might try the library. Overall, it's probably still got too much of a left wing slant to it to be on your Amazon wish list, but it is a fun read. Thanks for you kind comments. Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
It does stinketh that those who could more easily afford to pay the IRS without having to opt for the payment plan option, didn't pay. Dunno. Doesn't make sense, but I don't know the entirety of their situations either. The one that really puzzles me is Killefer, owing just shy of $1000. If you can afford household help, why not pay the taxes instead of having the debt placed as a lien upon your home? To me, this means that several notices to pay went into file 13. The fact remains: They will each have to pay interest and penalties. So they've not skated and the IRS will collect. seems even the empty seats are hot seats, and I wonder who got the IRS all fired up with their streaming audio/audits and their kick-start v-twin calculators? Why stop at just the nominees? I say audit the whole White House. I'm sure Willie Nelson would be honored to perform during the event for free.  I mean heck, the IRS needs to earn their wages since they slept over the bogus bottom lines offered up by the banks we're bailing out. better yet, let's audit the IRS. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Ron, for the expected "no big deal" response and the attempt at levity. I heard basically the same joke years ago but it was about "pinwheel" Bill. Regina, I'm certain the White House would NEVER pass an IRS audit!  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It should be expected, Mike, because it really is no big deal. You didn't hear me flinging insults when Bush choked on a pretzel, either, or even when he tried to leave a Beijing press conference through a locked door. As far as I can remember, I never commented on his military excursions or all the partying he did in college. And I didn't bat hardly an eye when more than few of President Bush's appointment attempts, like Holsinger and Mukasey to name more recent ones, brought embarrassment to the White House. Some things matter. Some thing's don't. And no man, including President Obama, walks on water or turns water into wine. Should we hold this Administration to a higher standard? You bet. Should we expect Obama to live up to the promises he made while campaigning for the office. Absolutely. Just as we did for President Bush. "During the year and a half that I covered George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, I must have heard his stump speech a thousand times. The lines changed little over the months, and the ending almost never changed -- Bush would raise his hand, as if taking an oath, and promise to restore honor and dignity to the White House. "He also vowed to restore civility to the poisonous atmosphere of the nation's capital, declaring at a GOP fundraiser in April 2000 that 'it's time to clean up the toxic environment in Washington, D.C. "A few months later, Bush told voters at a campaign event in Pittsburgh that his administration would 'ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.'" Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Should we hold this Administration to a higher standard? You bet. Should we expect Obama to live up to the promises he made while campaigning for the office. Absolutely. Some things matter. Some things don't Ok, Ron. if you don;t feel that it matters that Obama selected people that he knew beforehand would have problems getting nominated and did so anyway, which caused him to have to say he was sorry afterwards, fine. If you don't think that him knowingly nominating tax evaders and people like Richardson to top cabinet posts is any big deal, ok. If you want to equate them to Bush trying to exit out the wrong door, fine by me. If you can't recognize this as character flaws he should not have, no problem. btw, I checked my original post again and could not find George Bush's name anywhere and yet a large part of your reply centers around him. I can assure you he had nothing to do with Obama's cabinet selections. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Tax evaders go to jail, Mike. People who make mistakes, even seemingly careless ones, pay a fine and appropriate interest. There's a huge difference between the two. I haven't had a moving violation on my driving record since 1969. I did, however, date a woman in California who had a lead foot and got speeding tickets with alarming frequency. I wish she hadn't. But, clearly, I didn't feel it made her a bad person. And, Mike, in my opinion a person who gets a speeding ticket is far more culpable than someone who mistakenly underpays their income tax. Or do you really think any of these people knowingly intended to defraud the U.S. government? For a few thousand dollars? I will be the first to agree that some of the people Obama nominated are definitely not right for the job and shouldn't be confirmed. That assessment is based on their ability and character, though, not on silly mistakes they made. I want competence, not perfection. quote: It seems that way, doesn't it? If you check again, however, you'll find the noun subject of most of those sentences in my reply isn't Bush? I was, rather, talking about why I didn't sweat the petty stuff then and don't sweat it now. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting...if you didn't sweat what was in that article,or considered it petty, why reprint the article? We'll leave it at that, good sir. You don't believe selecting people for cabinet positions who have a history of failing to pay their share of taxes or who are involved in bribery and misappropriations of funds investigations is anything but small potatoes. You don't believe a president who does not have the foresight to see that selecting people with their history would be a black eye for the administration and would also put his own creditability in an unfavorable light is any big deal, then so be it. We can agree to disagree. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Mike, What is the likelihood that you do or do not know what Ron feels? Even if you do know what Ron feels, you state as an assumption of fact what President Obama knew or did not know about his Nominees beforehand. I suggest that only President Obama could have the knowledge of the truth or falseness of this assertion; unless you are able to offer some source as knowledgeable about the President's mental process as the President himself, you may be getting way ahead of your data. The same observation applies to your assertion that he did nominate them anyway. Richardson may not have been the right man for the job, for reasons I passed over above. I understand your upset about Daschel, and I feel some sympathy for it, though I happen to like much about both men. My understanding of the term tax evader is somebody who have been convicted of the charge of tax evasion. As I understand the current situation, none of these people has even been charged with tax evasion. Even if they had been charged with tax evasion, they would still be presumed innocent, though that hasn't even come up. Exactly how President Obama could knowing nominate somebody who was guilty of tax evasion charges that he had not yet been indicted for, much less tried on is a real brain twister. It is also an impossibility. These are not the equivalent of President Bush trying to exit out the wrong door. That was a bad briefing and confusion, and might have happened to anybody. It was the sort of thing that happened to Ford on occasion, and to Jimmy Carter as well. Everybody loves it when a President looks like a dork, especially their political enemies; but even their friends, a little, because it makes them more human. Schadenfreude, if I have my spelling right, is the German word for it; there's no real exact equivalent in English that I've found; and it means the pleasure taken in somebody else's discomfort or comeuppance. I'm sure that President Obama has more than his share of character flaws, and they're probably large ones. I'm simply not sure that you've found them here, though I must admit you perception may be better than mine at this early date, and that you're my best clue as to what's what about problems developing in the administration. I'm still feeling pretty hopeful. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, it's not an assumption of mine that Obama knew beforehand of the situations with his nominees. He stated that exact thing on a television interview this past week. Tax evaders have to be convicted? In a perfect world, I suppose. Murderers have to be convicted, too....tell that to O.J. No, they haven't been charged with tax evasion, rather just failure to pay their taxes and, no, they were not presumed innocent at all and, obviously, they weren't since they had to make up the taxes along with penalties. They would not be charged with actual evasion since they could claim "Oops!" in much the same way you or I could say, "Gee, officer, I didn't know it was a school zone." Wouldn't really be possible to prove I DIDN'T know....but we would be ticketed anyway. As one of my cheating golf partners says on occasion, "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." Unfortunately for them, these fellows got caught and only tried to make amends AFTER they were named cabinet nominees. I have had misgivings about Obama's lack of experience and his call for "change" since he threw his hat in the ring and I believe problems from that are surfacing now and it concerns me. He is now losing his cool. After diplomatically stating he was going to meet with Republicans to confer with their thoughts about the package, and after having done so and not getting the results he wanted, he is now literally shouting in anger in his press conferences and predicting doom and destruction that the country will never recover from if his package is not passed NOW. He gives the impression that he is becoming unglued after two weeks in office and that is a disheartening thing to see. The stimulus package is at a 38% approval rating as of last night so there are many that do not share the doomsday scenario he and Pelosi are advising the American people of. Yes, I know the other 62% are all dummies but there just may be something there. |
||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
For what it's worth I haven't commented mainly because I'm totally with Ron on this. It's no big deal, it's hardly worth discussing. Obama messed up an appointment or two, had the grace to admit he screwed up, and is no doubt moving on to deal with the real and huge problems the US and the world face right now. Have we really got nothing better to do than pick over the non-stories of a new administration feeling its way into power? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If I had the time or desire, moonbeam, I would list all of the non-issues you have been very vocal about over the past couple of years.....but that was the old you, I suppose. The "no big deal" only seems to walk one side of the fence. SInce I don't have either the time....or the desire...I'll leave it at that. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Yea, Mike, but we could probably list all the reasons why any Presidential embarrassment is really just an unwarranted attack by the media? What you haven't done yet, Mike, is tell us why this should be an issue. I mean, besides trying to characterize these people as murderers like OJ? They made mistakes and -- because the bar is higher right now -- removed themselves from consideration for some pretty important posts in government. I'll bet some of them have speeding tickets, too. Heaven forbid! Taxes are a debt we owe the U.S. government, just like the mortgage on our house. In either case, deliberate fraud will get a person sent to jail. Getting behind on our payments isn't fraud, however, and I don't think we should characterize it as a crime against humanity. It really is no big deal. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, what YOU haven't done is recognize the topic of this thread. It's not about Daschel or the others skipping out on their taxes and being nogoodniks. I'll reprint the actual topic for you... What I am completely confused by is the sequence of events that make no sense to me. (1) Obama selects these people. (2) Obama is informed they have issues (3) Obama nominates them anyway. (4) 3 of the 4 resign when the investigation commences (5) The White House says there was no request or pressure to have them resign (6) Obama states ""It's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules — you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes" HUH? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Tax Evasion, as I understand it, is a Felony. It is tried by the same rules that other felonies are tried by. None of these people have been charged with Tax Evasion, though you keep making the assertion that they were. Your comments about how you feel President Obama is dealing with this are matters of opinion and observation, and are useful for offering me a different point of view than my own. Your comments about how the tax bill is popular or not popular are useful to me, and your notion about where the sticking point are or may be is also useful. I don't have much of a sense of these things, and you have insight about these things that I don't have simply because you see things differently. You are a valuable resource to me and to others when you do this, and I appreciate the effort and time you put into it. When you say that these people are Tax Evaders, these nominees, and I see no prosecutions or evidence of any, I think you are venturing onto different ground. I have seen evidence that the government has asked these people to pay interest and penalties for underpaying —or what the government feels in underpaying— their tax obligation, and it appears to me that you are right and the government is right, though I can't tell for sure. I have had the government ask me for money a year or two after I've paid taxes. I disagreed with their judgement on one occasion, and I made an error on another. I paid up on both, without a fuss. The government knows that most of us can't afford to keep tax lawyers on tap all the time, and the deck is stacked. I do not see that there is sufficient evidence that the government has pressed actual legal charges of Tax Evasion against any of these Nominees to justify your use of the term with any accuracy. Pressing charges, it would seem to me, would be the absolute minimum requirement that would be necessary to make such an assertion, since we are a nation that still holds to the innocent before proven guilty theory (outside of our treatment of political prisoners, where apparently it does not seem to hold). In this case, charges have not even been brought. This seems somewhat excessive. In the case of your speeding ticket example, giving the ticket is bringing the charge, isn't it? And for me to call your example driver a reckless driver is more than a bit out of line, since I have no knowledge of Mr. E.D. being guilty of such an offense. And Mr. E.D. would certainly have a right to defend himself if charges had been brought. Nor would I have the right to assume that the charges were for vehicular homicide rather than for going five miles over the speed limit. To make such assumptions is probably not useful if we are to safeguard our American legal system, O.J. or no O.J. To blame O.J. for the defects in the prosecution case seems a bit silly, by the way. It is the Prosecution's job to make the case to the jury. They had a hand in jury selection, just as did the defense. Simply because the defense had excellent funding doesn't mean that the State should have lost. It means that the state should have presented the case in such a way as to be impossible to turn down. The State was simply used to working with all the advantages on their side, and did not prepare with the thoroughness necessary to win when their home court advantage wasn't as great as they were counting on it to be. By the way. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Very well, Bob. You stated that case eloquently and yet simple enough that I can identify with. I shall change the title tax evaders to persons who evaded paying their taxes, whether by deliberate or accidental means. In the case of the lady, since leins were placed on her property it would be a stretch to claim she was not aware of her obligations. In the case of Daschle, ignorance of the tax laws and not knowing the vehicle usage was income is palatable enough but now it has come to light that there was another 86,000.00 in income he completely failed to report and paid no taxes on. Be that all as it may, as I just explained to Ron, the nominees' shortcomings were nit the main focus of this thread. Obama's actions, selections and handling of it is...and what that may or may not tell us about the man. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: He suggests to me that Obama initially didn't think it was a big deal, either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If Obama didn't think that nominating a man under investigation by the ethics committee or three others with income tax problems was a big deal, then he's a fool and the following days bore that out, with three of the four resigning and the fourth squeaking in after days of debate. My guess is that he didn't think at all...or, if he did, he simply expected them to be accepted because HE wanted them to. Welcome to the real world, sir. Not sure I understand how three cabinet appointees resigning in light of personal investigations would not be considered at least a "little" big deal by those of you claiming no big deal. I would think that's a first..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Your issue is the question you believe the issue casts over the President's character, if I understand you correctly, and to have any sort of a grip on that, it's probably a good idea to note your reservations, and see how later events confirm or disconfirm them. My guess is that evidence will pile up in both directions, at least for a while, and it will take some time for a clear judgement to emerge. I suspect that the standing down of nominees from posts to which they have been nominated may be important, but when you suggest that it's a first, you open up your perfectly reasonable objections to comparison with similar situations in previous administrations. I think the issue is why nominees are standing down at this particular time, when Obama's popularity is reasonably high. That indeed is a matter that seems fairly interesting, since it really doesn't seem necessary for the President to have his nominees do so. There may be something funny about the vetting process that is worth exploring. I'm curious why things have been going this way; it seems a bit unpracticed, though of course, of necessity, it is. It's one of the things that happens when you bring in newcomers with a mandate for change: Things will look ham-handed for a while. That supporters of an administration would claim that it's "no big deal," is not the "first" that you suggest in your posting. And I think that you detract from your valid point by suggesting that it is. The last administration is not so long out of office for us to forget some of the suggestions they made and backed off on for important posts. And some of the appointments that they made and actually got confirmed proved to have been uncomfortable as well. This doesn't mean that what happens when the Democrats do the same isn't of considerable interest, only that the notion that the Democrats are the first here only takes away from the valid point you were making, and opens up an unnecessary point of contention. You also may lose the question of priority. My opinion, anyway. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: You mean like: Bombing Iraq Abortion and the value of life Killing Palestinians The character of God The character of the prospective VP Quantum mechanics The morality of the media While I completely accept that different people attach different significance to different topics of discussion, I'd still like to know which non-issues you were going to list? I have to admit though I've never understood this fascination with dissecting the minutiae of second hand data and political gossip. Apart from the fact that, by it's very nature, it is likely to be inaccurate, flawed or even completely false, it can invariably be countered by other equally suspect data, leading to an endless and pointless tit for tat. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, if a fool is someone who presumes innocence until guilt is actually proven, I think we're fortunate to have a lot of them in Washington. Including Senator McCain? Or did you forget that Palin was also under investigation by an ethics committee at the time of her VP nomination? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hello, Bob. Yes, the character issues will bear out over time. I believe Obama had character issues before being elected, with his associations with Rezko and Acorn, and it seems to me they have carried over but, as you say, time will tell. As far as the vetting process is concerned, I believe the CIA and FBI could learn from them! They certainly uncovered the facts in question and presented them to Obama so they must be pretty darn thorough. When I spoke of a first, I was referring to a new president taking office and have four of his cabinet appointees come under suspicion of wrongdoing, with three of them resigning and one squeaking by (that one being another first - a man overseeing the IRS who failed to pay appripriate taxes and was caught and fined). If you can show me any other president who managed to equal this feat immediately after taking office, I would be very interested in seeing it. Ron, the IRS doesn't presume innocence. When they uncover taxpayer wrongdoing, it is an accusation backed by fact and figures. Since it caused three people to resign says something for the validity of the charges, which Obama must have known were valid at the time he selected them. I find the scenario hard to believe that he would choose them, have the facts come out, watch them resign, causing him to apologize to the country....doing all of this on purpose. In his words, he screwed up. Funny thing is he never really mention what his screw up was. If it w s selecting these people then it validates the fact that he just didn't think. As far as Palin is concerned, I could make a case that there is a diference selecting a nominee for the country to vote on and a cabinet post assigned by the president, needing only congressional approval, but why go into that? I'll just say that, if my memory serves me correctly - and sometimes it doesn't - the investigation was on her husband, not her. p.s. I will say, however, in hindsight he was indeed a fool for selecting her |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, I'm sure that the president has character issues, and I'm certain that they will show up over time. I hadn't known about the Rezko reference you made in your post above, so I checked it out in factcheckers on the web. Factcheckers checked out campaign claims from both sides, and found two Democratic claims and two Republican claims that didn't stand up well to factual examination. This was one of the Republican claims that didn't stand up. The link is: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html One of the Democratic claims that didn't stand up was that McCain didn't understand the economy. I confess that I don't understand how the Fact check folks could say that myself, but I haven't read their article yet. I look forward to being informed. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have to admit though I've never understood this fascination with dissecting the minutiae of second hand data and political gossip. I don't disagree with that statement, moonbeam. concerning this topic there is no second-hand data or gossip. It's all documented so you shouldn't have any problem in that regard. As I said, i don't really have the time or desire to go digging to prove my point but, since you asked so nicely, I took five minutes to go back and grab a couple of examples of what my statement was referring to. And yes Alison for me, (based upon person experience time end time again) the fact that someone is prepared to put a gun to their shoulder and fire a piece of hot metal into the warm living flesh of another defenceless being to kill or maim it in order to derive pleasure from the act, is a very material consideration in determining whether they are fit to lead a nation. I'm assuming this is what you mean by second-hand data and gossip. There was no data that Palin hunted for the fun of it. Actually, she said just the opposite was very specific concerning her reasons for hunting, which were never refuted and yet you used gossip and second-hand datat to toss this slur at her. This is one of your "big deals"? Finally, this whole thing of "using" family and children for political ends unsettles me. I am not saying that Palin is going to do this, but the signs don't look too good Perhaps THIS is one of your big deals, using children for political ends (even with the disclaimer that Palin might or might not do this. Would THIS be one of the "big deal" things you refer to, much bigger than nominating a man under investigation for bribery and misappropriation of funds to the cabinet? I agree Alison, and if it was me I'd move heaven and earth to help achieve that goal of the press (and public) leaving the kids alone, by NOT having them able to take a shot of my daughter holding my baby son during the campaign rally where I was introduced as the vice presidential running mate!! Perhaps HERE we have found one of the BIG deals! Allowing photos of the daughter holding her baby to be taken at a campaign rally! Is THAT what relegates Daschel cheating on his taxes and being nominated to the cabinet anyway as a minor nothing, not even worthy of mentioning? The discussion should be about whether Palin can be an effective mother to such a child while being VP. The family thing isn't so much a worry for me as I am pretty sure she'll "neglect" her kids in favour of doing a good job for America (or a disasterous job! THIS must be the big deal!!! Whether or not she could effectively raise a child while being VP, certainly much more important that a man failing to pay his share of taxes for 5 years and now overseeing the IRS. I could almost buy that one except for the fact you never mentioned her counterpart, Biden, who is ALSO raising his child every day while serving as VP. Perhaps you overlooked that? It is laughable but also worrying that Governor Sarah Palin and her like-minded Americans adhere to this failed hypothesis still. Can they not read? Can they not think? Can they not learn? (concerning the date Christ was born) Perhaps NOW we have come to the big deal! THIS must be it. Idiotic Americans!!! These I noticed in five minutes. There are many more "big deals" you found it appropriate to comment on regarding Palin and republicans. I didn't even attempt to go into your Bush "big deals". I only have ten, maybe fifteen years of life remaining and I'm not sure I could finish in time! C,mon, moonbeam. There are a predicatble few who will manage to get into every thread detrimental to the right or it's members that magically have nothing to say when there is a problem on the other side of the fence. After all, who wants to be in a position to defend the indefensible? When basically coerced into appearing the only thing they have to say, if they appear at all, is, "Well, I didn't respond because I don't see any big deal here". The 'no big deal" theory doesn't seem stop them from bringing up things like the trivialities listed here.(Ron, you are not included here because you don't jump on trivialities on either side). Is it so hard to just say, Ok, the fellow goofed up? Even Obama said he made a mistake but some of our illustrious members who show up like clockwork when the show is on the other foot can't even bring themselves to say that. Nit-picking you call it? So be it. The nit-picking will continue for as long as we see things that we consider important that you find to be no big deal and we will have our threads that you all won't contribute to and you can have your threads that we will disregard also and the Alley will cease to be a place to exchange thoughts, if it ever was. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I agree Mike, not paying your taxes isn’t acceptable, anyone who’s found to have underpaid - whether intentionally or unintentionally - should, in my opinion, be forced to immediately forfeit their job. I also believe that evidence of their tax evasion should be used to stop them ever getting another one. If they aren’t willing to contribute to the wellbeing of society through paying taxes why the heck should society contribute to their wellbeing. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
But, Mike? look on the bright side. Someone said something to me the other day, a bright young person (barely 20.) "It seems to me that the Dems HATE the Reps, and they are so vocal and mean about it. But the Reps are more reserved or conservative about their distaste for Dem politics and leaders." maybe everyone is practicing Rep politics here without knowing it, upon this topic?? because I'm certainly not a hater. I still like Obama as a person and hope he does something right. Who could be in his seat and fix everything before the end of 2011? and yes, we've already had several discussions about Rush and Coulter, (if someone wants to peg them as haters) but they are not the voice for all conservatives. I don't hate them either. Rush has a job to do and Ann's got to sell her book. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Regina, that actually IS a bright side, when people, especially young people, can begin to see difference between the two, based on their actions and attitudes. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Bob. actually I had never really studied the property deal that Obama and Rezko jointly conducted. My views were more along these lines.. An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation. "It surprised me that late in the game he [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state," said Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts. In the wake of the Rezko indictment, Obama says he has given $44,000 of the Rezko-connected money to charity. Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor." http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/Story?id=4111483&page=2 Your link was very informative. It caused me to not only read the lines, but read between the lines as well. It seems that Obama sought Rezko's help in acquiring property. Obama had received thousands of dollars from Rezko in his senate run for a district that had 11 of 30 projects owned by Rezko. Rezko and friends donated 120,000 to Obama's 2004 senate run. Obama had sent a letter to the housing authority urging them to support a housing project which would ultimately go to Rezko. Obama claimed there was no connection. Rezko claimed there was no connection. Rezko's lawyer claimed there was no connection. If there WERE a connection, I would not expect any of them to say any different. As the article so expertly states..Can support for a low-income housing project be a "favor" to the developer if the developer didn't ask for it? You decide. Did McCain's people beef it all up for maximum derragatory value? Of course. That's what campaigning politicians do and, no, that doesn't make it right. Here is a link you may find interesting...http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/12/obamas-house-is-owned-by-rezkos-lawyer.html What bothers me is the recurring scenario we are seeing... Obama with regards to his pastor, "I didn't know" Obama acknowledges the action of dealing with Rezko was "boneheaded". Obama said he made a "mistake" with regards to Rezko. Obama goes on television to say "I screwed up" with regards to recent events. Either Obama makes a lot of mistakes to apologize for or else he tries things and, if they get called on or discovered as being wrong, he simply says "Sorry about that" and, if they don't, then all is well. I'd like to think that's not his true nature. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, The link you supplied led to a blurb attributed to someone named "Merrie." They had apparently declined to give an actual name, because the the space next to listing "Real Name" was left blank. Since we know that the Obamas paid market price for the lot their home was built upon, and that that transaction was separate from any that came afterward, the notion that the fraud you accuse the President of perpetrating seems unlikely at least for that piece, doesn't it? The piece of the property next door was owned by Mrs. Rezko. The Obamas bought one sixth of that property for about $40,000 from Mrs. Rezko — again, at market price — and Mrs. Rezko went ahead and sold the rest of that property for a substantial profit on top of what the Obamas paid. The Obamas paid Market value for everything they bought. The Rezko family — who only later had been tried or found guilty of anything — received fair value. There is no evidence of favors sought given or received. In this, the Rezkos then, by the way, are no different than the rest of us now: We have not been tried or found guilty of any wrongdoing, and to attempt to smear President Obama for dealings with them then is as logical as attempting to smear some random bystander for having financial dealings with one of us now. There will be plenty of time to say things about the President that will have plenty of validity to them. This is not one of them. There are still questions in my mind, for example, about Bill Richardson, whom I like and whom I believe is an effective politician, but whom I believe is not as clean as I would like him to be. See Greg Palance in the regard, who's got some eye-opening comments on The Governor; also, since you've still got upset to burn about Bill Clinton, he has some interesting things to say about Bill Clinton, too. Possibly about different issues than may bother you, but issues nevertheless. Keep on trucking, guy. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I'm unaware of the "fraud" you feel I am accusing the president of. If you can show me that somewhere, I'll appreciate it. I also stated that i really didn't know much about the specifics of the real estate deal and only checked into it after you introduced it. I DID speak in a derrogatory manner about Obama's association with Rezko, a convicted felon. After all, if Obama himself referred to his association with Rezko as being "boneheaded" and wrong, why should I (or you) disagree? The actual facts? Rezko and friends donated many thousands of dollars to Obama's campaigns. Obama pushed for, and got, legislation for building properties in which Rezko netted close to a million dollars. Obama went to Rezko for help in buying this house. Does this mean there was any collusion between the two. As your article staaed, "you decide". It's too bad that all you got out of that article was not getting the name. There is actually quite a bit of info there and links that provide much more.. They had apparently declined to give an actual name, because the the space next to listing "Real Name" was left blank. Since we know that the Obamas paid market price for the lot their home was built upon, and that that transaction was separate from any that came afterward, the notion that the fraud you accuse the President of perpetrating seems unlikely at least for that piece, doesn't it? Actually, that’s not quite accurate, Bob. The deal concluded with the Obamas buying the house for $1.65 million, at a discount of $300,000 from the initial asking price, while Rezko's wife closed on the vacant lot on the same day for the full asking price of $625,000, of which she borrowed $500,000, the a maximum allowable 80 percent from Mutual Bank. You may want to look up some background on Kenneth Conner, the appraiser who was fired over the mortgage. He has an interesting story… Conner previously confirmed to WND that he told the FBI, months ago, when he initially was fired, that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in "fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want," to benefit the Obamas.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83760 There is much information on this that I won’t put here since it’s quite a way from the original topic but, if you really want to search for the facts, they are there. Another interesting link is here…http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/12/obama-fannie-maefreddie-mac-chicago-home-mortgage-903000-over-legal-limit/ Have a great day, sir…. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That was kind of you I do appreciate it Mike , as I was genuinely confused.I think the misunderstanding is cleared up now. All the comments (except one) you cite from me were from the "Palin thread" started by me. This was a genuine attempt to discuss the wisdom of McCain's decision to nominate her by trying to establish the type of woman he had nominated. From my own perspective this meant trying to look at some of her recorded actions to see how they married up to my idea of a suitable character. As for whether trying to reach an understanding of Palin's character was a big deal, I can only say that at a human level imo the deals don't get much bigger. This woman might well have ended up as the President (un-elect) of the worlds biggest super-power. You pick on some of my attempts to understand what she is/was. And if one thing annoys me Mike, it's people quoting out of context to "support" their own distorted views. My feelings on killing animals are pretty well known here now, as are my feelings about those who kill for sport. At the time I wrote the quote you cite: quote: I admit that I wasn't completely clear on Palin's position. (Incidentally I'm since convinced that her stance on killing animals is little short of barbarous). All I was doing in the reply you quote was responding to Alison who herself had suggested that Palin hunting for sport was "fact". You tell me I was using "gossip and second hand data to toss this slur" at Palin. Just so that other readers of this can see the way I was arguing (and hopefully see that I wasn't being gratuitously inflammatory) I'll quote the whole reply: quote: Next Mike you pick out the passage above where I refer to Palin's family: quote: You tell me: quote: Actually in the context of a woman possibly becoming President I think it's potentially a far bigger deal yes, betraying a cynicism and dishonesty capable of acts at least as serious as those you suspect this gentleman of. However seeing as I didn't actually accuse Palin of anything, but merely reserved judgement, I think this is another attempt by you Mike to paint my words in a light to suit your imaginings. And so on and so forth, regarding Ms Palin's family arrangements about which I expressed some concern, but reached no conclusion. Unfortunately Mike at this point you went way off the rails so intent were you to apparently label me as some kind of xenophobic Republican hating Brit. I actually take even greater exception to you making out that I think Americans are idiots or that I particularly favour one or other of your political parties. All the times I have expressed my admiration (even love) for the US and its people seem to have slipped by you. All the times I have said what I like about Bush and how much I disliked Clinton and very much respected Reagan seem to have passed you by too. Meanwhile to dig up a quote from a thread I started and cite it as a quote from me: quote: Quite what makes you think I'd write something as banal as that I have no idea. I didn't write it, and I don't subscribe to the insulting tone in which it was written. If you look again the quote is from a piece written by a journalist in the UK, and my subsequent comment about it was as follows: quote: You tell me that you can cite lots of times when I've gratuitously insulted Republicans and Bush. Apart from the joke above about Bush's endearingly cross-eyed look when he delivers his fluffy speeches I can't find any. I guess I'm going to have to wait those 15 years Mike for you to find any too. Finally I might say that you've leapt on my original comments in quite a vigorous manner, and blown them up to imo to a rather exaggerated extent. I made two distinct points: 1 That the thread starter imo was a non-issue. Ron has already said all I want to say about this, and I am with him 100% (including about the speeding v. tax issue). I will say thought that I'm encouraged by Obama's readiness to admit to, and apologise for, mistakes. Believe me Mike, most senior politicians and executives make just as many and as serious errors, and spend their lives trying to contain the fall out and basically save their credibility and skins. These are the people you admire for their professionalism and ability. Obama is a refreshing change already, and the fact that we are hearing about his errors gives me even greater encouragement for a future of honesty and morality. 2 That some threads imo dwell too much on second hand trivial data, in a purposeless and circular fashion. That's simply my opinion. I'm sorry it caused you to riposte with a fairly misguided and inaccurate thrust at my efforts in the Alley. Just to be clear, it's simply my view and obviously if people are happy to debate such data then of course that's absolutely fine. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you for the clarifications, moonbeam. I’m getting a better understanding of how you choose to communicate. It appears you prefer to make statements to get your points across and always leave an out in case your comments are not accurate. We call that covering one’s bases. For example, you will speak of how a person who would hunt for sport not being fit to lead a nation (Palin) but then give yourself the out by saying you don’t really know if she does that or not. In that case, why even offer it until you DO know? You speak of how unsettling it is for you to see someone use family for political ends and then claim the out by saying you don’t really know if she is going to do that and then almost lose your out by saying the signs don’t look too good. In that case I’ll repeat, why not wait until you see if she DOES do it? Instead, you follow it with I agree Alison, and if it was me I'd move heaven and earth to help achieve that goal of the press (and public) leaving the kids alone, by NOT having them able to take a shot of my daughter holding my baby son during the campaign rally where I was introduced as the vice presidential running mate!! You lose your out there by describing Palin’s actions as the exact actions the you find unsettling. Perhaps that is why this example was not in your last reply. The discussion should be about whether Palin can be an effective mother to such a child while being VP. The family thing isn't so much a worry for me as I am pretty sure she'll "neglect" her kids in favour of doing a good job for America (or a disasterous job! Threw away your out here, too, by your “pretty sureness” comment and your forgetting that Biden was in the same boat. Perhaps that is why this comment was also absent in your last reply. The tactic is not new, I assure you. It has been used by religious leaders, salesmen, and politicians of all kinds so you are in good company. I apologize for attributing the God comment to you. I did indeed overlook that you were reproducing another’s comment. I would wonder, though, why you would choose to quote it? Just to say you didn’t agree with it? Nobody here would even know about it if you hadn’t brought it up. If I go into a bar frequented by Brits and proclaim “Englanders are among the dumbest people on earth, with no manner, no class and not even an iota of intelligence”, and then tell them Ididn’t say that…some reported did, do you think that would matter to them…or you? So what would your point be? As I say, our understanding of communications is getting clearer and I’ll try to remember yours when I read future comments of yours to avoid misunderstandings. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, When I lived in Virginia, I knew I was in trouble when somebody called me, "Sir." It was usually pronounced, "Suh!" and it had that Old Dominion invitation to a duel just below the surface like a Bouncing Betty. quote: What's wrong with any of this Mike? I don't think I'd care to pay full asking price for a property. My impression is that the full asking price is where the negotiations begin. I think that if Obama got $300,000 off the full asking price, he did okay but not spectacularly well in the negotiations, and that he may have been too attached to that particular property myself. It's possible he overpaid. As for the price of the lot next door, $625,000, assuming your figures are correct, she sold one sixth of that to the Obamas at market rate, and made a profit on the sale of the rest. Twenty percent down may have been the maximum allowable percent allowable by that particular bank, but it was hardly anything but a standard mortgage percentage for most of us home-buyers. Including myself. quote: Let's try it this way, Mike. From your earlier post: "It seems that Obama sought Rezko's help in acquiring property." and, "Obama claimed there was no connection. Rezko claimed there was no connection. Rezko's lawyer claimed there was no connection. If there WERE a connection, I would not expect any of them to say any different. " The first statement certainly hints heavily; the second statement is nonsense in terms of logical discussion because, as it happens, if there WEREN'T a connection, the statement would be identical. The statement is useful only insomuch as it suggests a smear, and not at all in terms of speeding forward a point of discussion. Beyond that, the notion of discussing the Rezko material is useful for you only from the point of view of showing wrongdoing or fraud of some type. It is pointless in terms of demonstrating something that is favorable to Obama. You haven't done so. It is pointless in doing something that is clearly Obama-neutral, since the most Obama neutral you have gotten was at the end of your discussion. quote: My gratitude is authentic for your willingness to consider that his true nature is not as bad as it may appear to you. I do know that this takes real effort, and it takes a sort of leap of faith at the beginning of this new administration. [/quote] For that reason, I don't hold it against you that you find yourself quoting somebody else using the term "fraud" toward the end of the posting I'm responding to here. It's simply really tough to try to bridge the tradition of Democratic/Republican difficulty in listening to each other. I do like the effort that we've been making lately though, and I'm even sort of pleased with it. By which I mean your efforts as well as my own. Let's keep going as best we can. All my best, Mike. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As the articles stated, there were many things favorable to Obama...the fact that he got it as a reduced price, that he got an amazing interest rate, which he claimed he got because there was another bank bidding for the loan (but he refused to divulge the name of the bank), the fact that the same bank set itself up as both the borrower and the lender, the fact that the appraiser was fired from the bank for questioning the irregularities of the deal.... there's plenty that doesn't pass the smell test. Be that as it may, Obama himself said it was boneheaded for him to be dealing with Rezko at that time so why you would question him is beyond me. No, my point of bringing up Rezko is that Obama was a friend to and had business dealings with a man under federal indictment (and later convicted). Obama was a friend to a man who bombed federal buildings. Obama selected to the cabinet three people who were, to be kind, delinquent for years in their taxes and one who was under federal investigation. Obama didn't claim to be "boneheaded" until after Rezko was convicted. Obama didn't say he "screwed up" until after the aforementioned turned in their resignations, with the exception of one. If you don't see any kind of pattern there, then so be it. Yes, it is good to have a president big enough to stand in front of the cameras and say "I'm sorry". I just wish he didn't have so many opportunities to do so. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Mike, most of your post I've already answered. As to this: quote: In a nutshell "yes" and "no". To elaborate a little: for much the same reason anyone posts anything in the Alley i.e. to debate a topic that exercises ones mind - to see what others think. Yes, to say that I didn't agree with the patronising manner in which it was said (common to many people these days it seems), but also to explore some of the issues surrounding what was really being said. You go on to say: quote: Er, somewhat self evident Mike isn't it? Or maybe in future you don't want me to post anything that you don't already know about? For instance I perhaps would have preferred not to know that Tom Daschle was in your opinion a "piece of garbage", but hey, this is the Alley and people can post what they want about politicians, political parties and nations can they not? I'm still waiting for you to reproduce all the hate quotes against the Republican party and Bush that you say I made. Or, if you can't even find one, maybe you could consider retracting that accusation as well. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I've already gone over the 5 minutes I was going to allow myself on this and I think I proved my point well enough with the examples I gave, at least to me and a few others. If you disagree, that's your right. For instance I perhaps would have preferred not to know that Tom Daschle was in your opinion a "piece of garbage", but hey, this is the Alley and people can post what they want about politicians, political parties and nations can they not? That's extremely weak. If I say Daschle is garbage, it is me saying it. According to you, from what I gather, we should be able to list derrogatory things even against a race or country or nationality as long as we are quoting someone else and follow it by saying we don't agree. One would have to assume then that I could reproduce a KKK document calling blacks every blasphemous name in the book as long as I said I didn't agree with it afterward. Do you think that would fly? Or I could find a hateful commentary about England, post it and then say I find it condescending and inaccurate, would that be ok? Somehow I don't feel it is anyone's best interest, or PIP's, to use quotes that denigrate countries, races, or nationalities, just to be able to say you don't agree with them as a way to get them in print. If I'm wrong then Ron can correct me on that one. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Yes certainly that is fine. And I'm sure, based upon what he's said already, that Ron would have no problem with that especially if it was in the spirit of debate (as my thread /pip/Forum6/HTML/001745.html was) rather than simply gratuitous rudeness. In point of fact I think Ron might allow derogatory things about race, country and nationality even if wasn't quoting someone else, or even if it was, but the poster said he agreed, in certain circumstances. At least I too would be interested to hear from him on that point, as there seems to me to be a fine line between calling a black person rude borderline racist names, and calling the whole race rude names. In fact, personalising it seems to be rather worse. quote: I think we've seen worse things in the Alley. I also think Ron might allow it if it was part of a sensible debate. quote: Of course it would be absolutely ok, I really can't understand why you should think I would think it wouldn't. Furthermore as far as I'm concerned it would be also ok for you to make hateful comments about England and the English if you gave lucid reasons as to why you were doing so. I think you and I must think rather differently on these matters because I found your personal comment about Daschle, and Jaime's comments about Obama well over the top simply because they WERE directed at a person as opposed to a faceless collective. A person who states that another person is a piece of garbage or a Nazi without any real evidential back-up looks nevertheless quite vindictive and capable of causing harm to another person. A person who states that a whole nationality is garbage frankly, to me, looks just silly. quote: You think that I did that, or that I would do that? You're accusing me of doing that, when I've already stated quite clearly what I did and why - not to mention the evidence of the thread itself? I don't understand why you're doing this Mike ~shrugs~. And while we're dealing with your accusations against me you still haven't come up with the "many more" anti-Bush and anti-Republican comments I've made. Maybe it's a case of making sure you have more than 5 minutes to check unfounded personal accusations before you make them Mike. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: For what it’s worth Mike I think you’ve got the essence of Brits just about spot on, though you did miss the bit about them being inveterate liars. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A person who states that another person is a piece of garbage or a Nazi without any real evidential back-up looks nevertheless quite vindictive and capable of causing harm to another person. You pegged me, moonbeam. Archie Bunker and I are actually killers in disguise. My cover is blown |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes, Mike but you HAD evidential back up so you're in the clear. (And I meant "harm" as in mental not physical - lest you trivialise it any further) Now maybe you could address the important issues like what you want to say about Brits, and why I hate Republicans. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What I want to say about the Brits? I've no idea where that came from. Anything I would say about the Brits would be positive. I admire the country and the people and they have my total respect. Nor would I pass judgement on them as a nation or on their government, regardless of who was in charge. Besides, how could I slander a place that gave the world the Beatles? Why you hate Republicans? I'm thinking maybe a genetic disorder, perhaps?? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Nah, thinking torture doesn't hurt and giving money to the rich and refusing money to the poor to survive the recession that the policy pitched us into isn't genetic, though I imagine "serene inattention" would be a nice way to put it. I wouldn't be so critical of Republicans, Mike. Most of them actually do mean well; really, they do. Genetic is so harsh. Shame on you. Best wishes, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Sorry Mike, I shouldn't have posted my last reply, it was an irrelevant, ill-considered off-the-cuff reaction to your attempt to use levity to effect a diversion. With hindsight all it did was to give you more material to effect an even bigger diversion. Please can we rewind to my reply #44 if you want to continue the discussion. Thanks. PS To Bob - ty for your point about "genetic" , but I think it was meant in joke and even if wasn't I'm cool with it . It's the continued inference that I have an inherent dislike of Republicans, Bush and possibly Americans that I resent. An assertion that's been made without a shred of evidence (despite protestations that such evidence is plentiful, but that nevertheless one does not have enough time to find it or can't be bothered). |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, The graph did at last come up. I noticed that somebody had reclassified part of the tax cuts into something else to get a net figure of 22% instead of closer to 40% of the money in the bill to be coming from tax cuts. To me, I'm not sure that the semantic point is useful except as points in the class war against the poor. The Washington Post says that a substantial portion of these tax cuts go to people who don't pay taxes. I'd have to say that constitutes a real slap in the face against the poor, though I couldn't be at all sure that the poor are the ones that don't pay the taxes, to tell the truth. I suspect that what the Washington Post means to be saying is that is that people who don't pay income tax don't pay taxes at all. Wow, given that most of those people are disabled or single mothers or dependent children children of single parents, I guess we ought to crack down and repeal those child labor laws so the six and seven year olds can compete against their parents in the marketplace and really drive those wages down. Also, by golly, it's a good thing that they don't have to pay any other taxes, isn't it? With all that fat and happy cash they've got running out of their ears. They sure are one lucky group of people, aren't they? These are actually people who could use straightforward grants for food and healthcare and housing and educational enrichment. This is actually a time when money spent in those places would help the country. Best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
“I couldn't be at all sure that the poor are the ones that don't pay the taxes,” I don’t quite get that either, Bob. The current HHS poverty threshold for one person is $10,400. For example: Let’s say I barely make enough money to cover my immediate expenses this year, and I’ll give a round figure of $600 a month. $7200 per year. That’s an extremely modest mortgage payment, and painfully low budgeted utilities, food, gas and insurance. (and yes, I’ve done this as do millions of other Americans.) and many may say that’s not a likely picture of “poor” because the indication of a mortgage and no car payment signifies some sort of wealth or asset, so I’m strictly going by the HHS DOLLAR figure for income specifics and stats, not hard assets or property owned. Sales tax here is 9.75% I also have to pay property tax of $600 a year. and a wheel tax on every vehicle I tag each year of $27 Claiming 0: My federal withholding for the year would be around $600 Social Security withholding $500 and Medicare $120. Rough bottom estimate: $2000 a year, city, county, state, and fed. roughly 27.7% of the person’s income. That’s 1 person, bottom level average income, no children, and hopefully...no sickness or large maintenance expenses/repairs or purchases for the year. So who are these people who are not paying ANY taxes? They would have to be dead, dying, or so destitute that they definitely need help. quote: I hear you. or we could just set up a picket line at the SSI and the Welfare offices and demand they not receive their benefits for our benefit, even though, at any given moment of total misfortune, either one of us might have to cross over into the receiving line. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I noticed that somebody had reclassified part of the tax cuts into something else to get a net figure of 22% instead of closer to 40% of the money in the bill to be coming from tax cuts. Well, Bob, since the Congressional budget office created the chart, who do you suppose that "somebody" could be? How about the congressional budget office? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
