Kelly the Dog Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I post these/those links to encourage posts, as you know. debate also. That is as big a lie as anything I have ever heard Obama or George Bush say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If Lux Interior, had sang " I'm so dizzy" we wouldn't be having this conversation. RIGHTIOUS, DUDE!! Hey, I like The Cramps. One of the better concerts I saw back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 "They" being someone who isn't the actual nominee this time. Is there a particular line of association you are willing to stop at? Perhaps any inadvertent activity by a nominee's high school biology partner? The babysitter of a child the nominee's child plays with? The only troubling thing about this latest "scandal" is how far into the realm of the absurd some of you are willing to travel to to disqualify a nominee. Call me crazy, but I prefer nominees not to have tax liens on their homes for the last 16 years. I guess I'm just expecting too much from the "most ethical administration ever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 No, I don't they should be held to a higher standard. Why would they? I think everyone should be held to the same standard, and that they shouldn't cheat on their taxes. You really can't understand why people expect more from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for example, than the average citizen? Lot's of jobs require you to be held to higher standards than other people. I have to report my investments among other information because I am a Registered Rep. I can be fired for failing to report these investments. I am held to a higher standard than others in this regard due to my profession. I fail to see why it is out of line to expect someone who is in a position of power with the IRS to understand how to do his taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 That is as big a lie as anything I have ever heard Obama or George Bush say. Welcome to politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 If this were the only case nobody would care. But it is not - it is the fourth to emerge in days. Unpaid taxes going back years, then suddenly they decide to pay right before confirmation hearings. There is a pattern emerging among these nominees that is very troubling. Whatever, I seem to remember Bush running into similar trouble, but for arguments sake, I guess he didn't have as high a standard from the get go and the Messiah did promise change... Bush chose Cheney as VP and immediately lowered the ethical bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 You really can't understand why people expect more from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for example, than the average citizen? Lot's of jobs require you to be held to higher standards than other people. I have to report my investments among other information because I am a Registered Rep. I can be fired for failing to report these investments. I am held to a higher standard than others in this regard due to my profession. I fail to see why it is out of line to expect someone who is in a position of power with the IRS to understand how to do his taxes. I happen to agree with your assessment, though I am not sure it should apply to the spouse of a prospective nominee whose business is a separate entity. On the others, the clearance process should have been better front loaded and it will be now, especially on taxes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Whatever, I seem to remember Bush running into similar trouble, but for arguments sake, I guess he didn't have as high a standard from the get go and the Messiah did promise change... Bush chose Cheney as VP and immediately lowered the ethical bar. I did a quick serach and couldn't find anything. I did find that a treasury secretary during Bush I, Catalina Vásquez Villalpando, was convicted of hiding income, served four months, and owes 160k. Also that Dick Morris has a 1.5 million IRS judgement against him (and a 450k Conneticut judgement). Regardless, the issue is whether this is one mans embarrassment or an emerging pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 You really can't understand why people expect more from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for example, than the average citizen? Lot's of jobs require you to be held to higher standards than other people. I have to report my investments among other information because I am a Registered Rep. I can be fired for failing to report these investments. I am held to a higher standard than others in this regard due to my profession. I fail to see why it is out of line to expect someone who is in a position of power with the IRS to understand how to do his taxes. I don't like the fact that Geithner did what he did. I actually think he made an honest mistake, and then he made a dishonest mistake by not clearing up the other two years. That's my personal opinion. But I don't think he or anyone else should have done that, nor do I think that it has one thing to do with whether or not he can do his job at the Treasury. (I am not really the biggest Geithner fan and don't know whether he is the best guy for the job and don't know whether he should have been confirmed or not, that is a different discussion.) What I do think is anyone who thinks it's any more okay to cheat on your taxes because Geithner did, is a total **** regardless of party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 What I do think is anyone who thinks it's any more okay to cheat on your taxes because Geithner did, is a total **** regardless of party. Way to miss the point. Obviously nobody should cheat on their taxes. But I don't think screwing up taxes makes my mechanic any less of a mechanic. Now the Treasury Secretary on the other hand better understand taxes if he is going to be a good Treasury Secretary. He doesn't, and that makes me question Obama's judgement for picking him to head the IRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Way to miss the point. Obviously nobody should cheat on their taxes. But I don't think screwing up taxes makes my mechanic any less of a mechanic. Now the Treasury Secretary on the other hand better understand taxes if he is going to be a good Treasury Secretary. He doesn't, and that makes me question Obama's judgement for picking him to head the IRS. I'm not missing the point. If you really think that it shows Geithner doesn't understand the US Treasury because he didn't fill out a tax form when working overseas, or that he is actually going to spend any time trying to fix the US tax code that he himself doesn't understand in the next four years, please do. I think that is nuts. It's hard to find anyone that doesn't think he's uniquely qualified for the job. Whether he is the best guy is highly debatable. I don't necessarily think he is myself although I don't know. But he understands the Treasury as well as anyone who may run the Treasury. That I would bet on. That seems to me is the one thing that everyone agrees on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I'm not missing the point. If you really think that it shows Geithner doesn't understand the US Treasury because he didn't fill out a tax form when working overseas, or that he is actually going to spend any time trying to fix the US tax code that he himself doesn't understand in the next four years, please do. I think that is nuts. It's hard to find anyone that doesn't think he's uniquely qualified for the job. Whether he is the best guy is highly debatable. I don't necessarily think he is myself although I don't know. But he understands the Treasury as well as anyone who may run the Treasury. That I would bet on. That seems to me is the one thing that everyone agrees on. Right. Who better to catch bootleggers then Al Capone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Right. Who better to catch bootleggers then Al Capone? You don't think Al Capone knew more about bootlegging than the cops? If you're going to make an inane, mindless, ill-conceived and wholly irrelevant analogy, at least it should help your side, not hurt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 You don't think Al Capone knew more about bootlegging than the cops? If you're going to make an inane, mindless, ill-conceived and wholly irrelevant analogy, at least it should help your side, not hurt it. That was my point. Put a tax cheat in charge of Treasury. He knows the tricks. But I think Al would be smarter then to pull the I forgot booze was illegal alibi that seems so common to these nominees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Call me crazy, but I prefer nominees not to have tax liens on their homes for the last 16 years. I guess I'm just expecting too much from the "most ethical administration ever". You are crazy. The tax lien is on her husband's business, and it wasn't paid because he has been disputing whether or not it was properly assessed. So, to review why you are crazy, the lien is not on their home, the lien was not ignored, and lastly the lien has absolutely nothing to do with Solis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 You are crazy. The tax lien is on her husband's business, and it wasn't paid because he has been disputing whether or not it was properly assessed. So, to review why you are crazy, the lien is not on their home, the lien was not ignored, and lastly the lien has absolutely nothing to do with Solis. I like your strategy, place the bar so low for this administration that you can't possibly be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I like your strategy, place the bar so low for this administration that you can't possibly be disappointed. Actually I've placed the bar pretty high for the actual nominees, as opposed to yours and others' strategy of just making crap up where there isn't any. You post was loaded with outright fabrications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 You are crazy. The tax lien is on her husband's business, and it wasn't paid because he has been disputing whether or not it was properly assessed. So, to review why you are crazy, the lien is not on their home, the lien was not ignored, and lastly the lien has absolutely nothing to do with Solis. For someone who fakes outrage at my post which you claim is "loaded with fabrications", you might want to stop fabricating your own posts. He has not been disputing the taxes owed for the last 16 years, they are caliming that they did not know there were any liens on the business and they were unaware of the taxes owed. Another person claiming ignorance. It is funny though, they paid them off right away when it could affect her nomination. I was incorrect about the lien being on the home instead of the business, but you seem to be fabricating excuses at record pace. "Solis and her husband, Sam Sayyad, were unaware of liens against his auto repair shop until USA TODAY asked about them Tuesday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. Vietor said Sayyad went to the Los Angeles County tax office and paid what he was told he owed — about $6,400 — to settle outstanding liens." This doesn't sound like an assesment issue to me. "Records show Sayyad had two liens, from 1994 and 1996, for $1,255 in unpaid state sales taxes. The remaining two, from 1994 and 1995, are for $786 in unpaid county health and safety fees." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...and-taxes_N.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 For someone who fakes outrage at my post which you claim is "loaded with fabrications", you might want to stop fabricating your own posts. He has not been disputing the taxes owed for the last 16 years, they are caliming that they did not know there were any liens on the business and they were unaware of the taxes owed. Another person claiming ignorance. It is funny though, they paid them off right away when it could affect her nomination. I was incorrect about the lien being on the home instead of the business, but you seem to be fabricating excuses at record pace. "Solis and her husband, Sam Sayyad, were unaware of liens against his auto repair shop until USA TODAY asked about them Tuesday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. Vietor said Sayyad went to the Los Angeles County tax office and paid what he was told he owed — about $6,400 — to settle outstanding liens." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...and-taxes_N.htm And the LA Times article says he is disputing them, but paid them anyway to keep it from being an issue. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with Hilda Solis. She doesn't have anything to do with his business, and she didn't know about the lien. Furthermore, if Sayyad didn't know about them (according to USA Today), but paid them off when he found out, then where is the story here, and how does it in any way involve Hilda Solis? The answer is it doesn't and you and your party are grasping at straws to tank a pro-Labor, Labor Secretary nominee because you hate unions. No one gave a crap about a few grand lien (which just got paid, in any event) on an auto shop that either has been in dispute or wasn't known about for sixteen years prior to her nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 And the LA Times article says he is disputing them, but paid them anyway to keep it from being an issue. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with Hilda Solis. She doesn't have anything to do with his business, and she didn't know about the lien. Furthermore, if Sayyad didn't know about them (according to USA Today), but paid them off when he found out, then where is the story here, and how does it in any way involve Hilda Solis? The answer is it doesn't and you and your party are grasping at straws to tank a pro-Labor, Labor Secretary nominee because you hate unions. No one gave a crap about a few grand lien (which just got paid, in any event) on an auto shop that either has been in dispute or wasn't known about for sixteen years prior to her nomination. You're right, just because she is married to a guy who has failed to pay several types of taxes many times over the last 16 years has nothing to do with her judgement. Just claim that you had no idea there were a bunch of liens and pay them off when the press finally outs you. After all, when you are married to a powerfull politician, what is the IRS going to do to you? He was not disputing the taxes over the last 16 years, he is only now questioning them because it looks better than saying "I just didn't feel the need to pay them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts