Maybe if the O appointees paid their taxes.....sm.
Posted By: MT and worn out on 2009-03-10
In Reply to:
This is from the Washington Post. The name of the article is titled: Federal Insider: Staffing Shortage Hinders Treasury's Progressþ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902807.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
do you honestly think only these appointees are not paying taxes?
These are only getting caught because they are being thoroughly investigated for their positions. How many do you think are cheating and not getting caught because nobody seems to give a darn at the IRS about the big government people, only us little people who are being taxed to death anyway!
No, it is not just political appointees cheating on taxes,
It simply comes to light when they get close to be putting charge of seeing that the rest of us do not cheat on our taxes. The excuse that everybody else is doing it does not hold much water.
Not a whole lot of us could sail through all the extra scrutiny that goes with the politcal vetting process. But I think that by the time someone reaches the level where he's running for a high office or being considered for a presidental cabinet post, he's probably already quite experienced at misdirection, scratching backs, bending rules, fudging numbers and managing information.
I don't think it even occurs to some of these people that they should have been playing by the same rules as the rest of us all along. All they need to do is respectfully decline the honor of the nomination or the appointment. But instead they go ahead, because it does not occur to them that they will actually get caught. Greed followed by arrogance coupled with stupidity. Priceless!
Maybe if they ALL paid their taxes....
instead of hiding money in their freezers, offshore accounts and various tax shelters.......THEY ARE ALL GUILTY IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
they went out to people who paid taxes, too.
x
On HC and other staff appointees...
I will reserve comment momentarily on the "increasing number of former Clinton staff," to see if you have further comment on my OP. To some extent, I share your concern about HC, but my feelings about her are pretty mixed. Her behavior during the primary was predictably brutal and I am sure she still has her own political aspirations for the future. SOS position would be a definite feather in her cap toward that end IF she meets the expectations as laid out during Obama's campaign in terms of troop withdrawal from Iraq, a more surgical focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan front, A 2-state solution in the Palestine/Israel conflict and more open diplomacy overall.
Should she "go rogue" on Obama in this regard, she would be doing herself more harm than good. The SOS serves at the behest of the president and what the president giveth, the president can taketh away. Case in point, Colin Powell. In terms of Obama's strategy, I truly believe Obama the fox is in charge of that decision. As a senator. HC has the potential to affect policy on a much BROADER range than she does has SOS. In any case, there seems to be a log-jam of sorts over the vetting of HC in terms of conflict of interests with Bill's financial dealings, so this is still in the wait and see mode.
Again, will reserve comment on the staff picks to see what you have to say after reading the OP. On the economy, I want a little bit of both. I think it would be wise for Obama to select people who are innovative and open to new approaches and even sweeping systemic reforms. I agree with your observations about the current cronies. So far, there is not much to say about this since the only economy-related selection so far has been Orszag, who did serve on the Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton during years that were not exactly disastrous in that respect. In fact, a balance budget was achieved then and in that respect, he probably tried to err on the safe side with this pick.
I think you may be selling Obama a bit short on the cabinet/administration relationship. It is not a foregone conclusion that the cabinet runs the leader. I believe Obama's style will be more or less the "iron fist in the velvet glove." That too remains to be seen. You may want to consider that even former CLINTON people may be interested in propelling themselves into the future world and shaking these types of perceptions. I also do believe there is plenty of room for those fresh faces that we both would like to see step forward, but it is not difficult for me to understand his focus on experience and name recognition in these top key posts. HC has some of the former and much of the latter. If she is not as experienced as some of the other potential picks, it could just be that she would be less independent in this capacity and, by necessity, would have to look to her boss for guidance.
If they were Bush appointees
Would never hear about it.
If these were Bush appointees, the dems would be
nm
I sense a recurring theme with the Obama appointees...
THEY DON'T PAY TAXES!!!
What happened to "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?"
I wish I could get away with not paying my taxes.
As I stated before, I am so glad I didn't drink the kool-aid.
That's right. He was paid but he
drove a used car and made about 10K a year. Apparently, he didn't do it for the money, so what's your point?
And those that do less, get paid less....
xx
And you really think HE paid for them?
Hate to break it to you hun, but in the end, we still paid for them. He works in the GOVERNMENT. Meaning he is paid with TAX dollars. OUR tax dollars.
They are running a campaign. Obviously, image is everything. Otherwise you all wouldn't be hating on the fact that John is an old man or that Sarah is a beauty pageant winner.
I'm so glad this is an important issue. If you want something donated to charity, contact O and tell him to sell his jet and give the money to hungry children.
Sheesh.
You PAID them? Gee, let's put you in DC
nm
No stress here. If anyone is getting paid here...
it would seem to be the dem attack machine. thanks for your concern tho.
She paid for the tanning bed herself...
not the taxpayers. Maybe we should go in all the gov mansions in the lower 48 and see who installed what. Sheesh! lol.
As to the rape kit thing...you act as if Wasilla, Alaska is the only city who did that. It is common practice in the lower 48 as well. That does not make it right, but it is not isolated to Sarah Palin. And it you look closer, the Wasilla Police Department AND the State police (not under her jurisdiction) were actually paying for the testing, and then passing the cost on to the patient, which prompted the STATE, because of the state troopers billing as well, to ban the practice. So if you are going to take Wasilla to task for it, add several towns in the lower 48 to the list.
Yes, and the devil will be paid. n/m
It's not about what she wears. It's about who paid
of the populist appeals to the no frills, no elites allowed "working folks" who they are trying to dupe into believing they give a rat's butt about. If they are so cavalier with their campaign contributions, no telling what they would be willing to do if they ever got their hands on taxpayer money.
I am not b*tching about how little MTs are paid....
and we the people DO pay for union contracts with higher prices on goods. Union dues DO NOT pay for their benefits. Employers DO, who pass that on to consumers. I know you know that.
You don't have to tell me about Sam. I grew up in Sam country. I know a few blue haired ladies who started in the first store built in my little town who are rich today because of the profit sharing.
Yes, I shop at Wal-Mart. As do many millions of Americans. And not all their products are cheap knock-offs.
Oh I see...doesn't matter who someone associates with or what he does, or what a union does illegal or not, as long as it benefits the union members. I can see why Obama is not a concern to you.
Wonder how much Google is getting paid
Now that Google is tracking your search of symptoms put in by those who think they might have flu, they will send that info to the government and let them know where flu outbreaks may be? Now, of course, there will be those that think that is wonderful but those of us who do understand our privacy should be a freedom in this country, we know this is an out and out invasion of our privacy. Google has no privacy safeguards in place, so if Google is giving the government information on things we google, as they already have, you still think your government is wonderful and looking out for you? Google should be ashamed.......they are selling us out. There will be more and more companies invading our privacy as the government invades more of our private lives and these companies do their bidding.......
It probably will not be paid back.
Besides, we already owe China and now more? We still need to pay back the first debt. Looks like United States will be sold soon.
I think that if you truly paid attention
to the complaints on this board, you would realize that what we are complaining about is not the fact that our money is going to government programs to help people who need it. Most of us are upset because these government programs are being abused and misused by dishonest people who would much rather not work and be lazy just to receive government assistance. I have no problem helping people who need it. I think Clinton did a good thing by reforming welfare and I think it is a shame that Obama is undoing that. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up.....not a hand out.
Not wanting to help people in need is not the issue here and I wish that you guys could understand that. We aren't being heartless here. We are just sick and tired of people mooching off of the government when they could work and make a living for themselves.
If the dishonest people who are abusing the system could be taken out of the welfare equation, just think of the extra money we would have to really help those in need. Think about it.
It is probably not an MT and a paid blogger. sm
They are on all the political boards. The first hint was CV. You brought up some topics that are a no-no. I know it is hard, but try to ignore and not respond to posts attacking you. People need to question. I hope people do their research and there is some discussion on these topics. It is crucial that everyone understand the monetary system.
He was paid, the firm wasn't. SM
Either way, he could have said no and he didn't. Mind you, I have a limitation on what I think gay rights should extend to, but I won't go into that here because I will get slaughtered.
He paid with his own earnings? Oh how awful.
And what was your point? Wouldn't you tend to trust a candidate more who paid for his campaign with his own money, rather than taking bribes from special interests that he has to pay back later by stealing more freedom and cash from you?
And if your point was that his take on the case was so high that he could finance a whole campaign with it, again, so? - A jury of your peers made that award and likely you would have too had you been on the jury and had a chance to hear the facts. If he had been representing you in a case in which your child was disemboweled by a defective piece of equipment which the manufacturers knew full well tended to disembowel children but they sold it to you anyway, would you think the jury awarded too much or the lawyer might get paid too much?
Or instead of actually thinking about the need to have lawyers represent people who have been egregiously harmed by incompetent and negligent companies, and the need to have juries hear the facts and make appropriate awards when justified, is it just easier to nod at the bullcrap propaganda which says you don't NEED to be protected because look how much money the lawyer makes?
When it's your turn you're going to want that lawyer and you're going to want that jury to hear your story. So what is the problem you have with holding villains accountable and seeing other people get the settlements they deserve?
Yeah, I forgot, he never paid
*No child left behind* either....remember that...Yeah, silly me, he would never do that. My sincere apologies....javascript:editor_insertHTML('text',' ');
javascript:editor_insertHTML('text','');
again...as usual...paid no attention...
The taking one more shot post appeared LONG before your cease fire....you just had not seen it yet. But it would not have mattered. I didn't read this latest diatribe...too tired and really don't give a darn. And I will give you a clue dear, one of those 4-letter words...I did not say the GOP then does not resemble the GOP now....in fact I agree whole-heartedly. The GOP has turned into Democrat lite. Which is why I don't belong to the grand old party anymore. Only register as Repub in primary years because if I didn't, I couldn't vote, and I want to have a say, no matter how small. You should really ask questions before you jump off the deep end...but you don't care, because you are always right, aren't you? Speaking from that high horse of moral authority. You must have the word "bigot" in your shortcuts, you sure invoke it enough. LOL. Really too bad that just you typing it here doesn't make it true....or maybe it is, the gospel according to Globetrotter....LOL geezzz.
If we were being paid bloated wages, maybe, but
if they want to go any lower than they already have gone (I had a truly insulting offer a few weeks back of 0.0625 cpl with 30 years experience), I say let India have it. MTSOs need to be going in the opposite direction and MTs might want to look into unionization themselves. Peronally, I think we are also worth $28/hr and do not consider that to be an exorbitant for MTs or for auto workers, given the COL. JMHO.
I paid attention and I ain't even republican
Now that your hope for racist remarks have no doubt been proven unfounded, you gotta start grasping at anything you can find, because those "racial" remarks were really all the democrats had going for them. Those mean 'ole republicans.
Are you really so racist that you don't think a black man may actually like McCain instead of Obama? Are you that deluded in your thoughts?
I have several black neighbors and they have made it quite clear they will never vote for Obama. They work their butts off and don't believe anyone has the right to their money!
I don't care where they came from, as long as he paid for them - nm
x
If she paid a lot of money for the B-52's hair
.
Palin's stylist paid twice as much as
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=9234675&nav=HMO6HMaY
on-call is paid time
you do realize they would be paid to be on call. So they could be on call at home or on call at the facility. they would be paid either way. Are you familiar with on-call pay?
union people will still get paid for doing nothing.
Apparently you have paid NO attention.
This talk about NWO has been out there since Bush 41, almost two decades. Where have you been? But if it makes you feel better to blame Obama, have at it.
This election was bought and paid for by
P.S. We paid off our mortage last year
and DH's truck is free and clear also. It took us 15 years to pay the mortage and 4 years for the truck. If we want something, it will be in cash. We bought and paid for our cars and pickup truck with cash. We haven't had car payments since I was stupid enough to buy a brand new car back in 1985. If we can't afford a car with cash, we would wait. We're waiting now. I would love to have a newer car and DH really should have a newer truck because it's part of his business, but that's not in the cards. Maybe next year (saying this for 3 years now).
You're right - look elsewhere! I paid cash for my car
the current recession. (Also a nice used car.) I test-drove the car, talked them into letting me 'vet' it at my own mechanic, and when it passed, I showed up at the dealership with a cashier's check for $1.5K less than their 'bottom line'. I told them it was all I had. (It was the truth). The salesman went and talked to the manager, came back, and said 'You've got a deal.' (Also asked me 'where did you learn to buy cars?) I also talked them into a free extended warranty, radiator flushing and new coolant.
:D
Most beneficiaries draw out FAR more than they ever paid in.
I don't have time to hunt down the information, but I've heard for many years, from many different sources, that the average beneficiary collects every cent they ever paid into the system within something like 5 years, and every penny paid after that is a freebie from you and me, the folks currently paying into the system. Frankly, it's one great big inter-generational pyramid scheme.
In fact, when the retirement age was originally set at 65, way back when, the average life expectancy was UNDER that by a few years, so the system was designed for people NOT to collect from it.
My mother retired at 65, and she's going to be 88 next week. So that's something like 18 years the rest of us have supported her. She might also be getting some sort of widow's benefits; not sure about that, but if my dad were still alive, he'd be 96 (he died 15 years ago), and anything he paid into the system would have been paid out LONG before he died.
So, do I want to take away people's benefits, even if they're getting a freebie? No, of course not. They were promised this, and they're getting it, albeit at our expense. What I would like is for the rest of us to be given a choice to opt out, either entirely or for at least a percentage, because at this rate, my money would do better for me stuffed under the mattress than entrusted to the greedy hands of the politicians in Washington.
(And no, I don't stash cash in my mattress, so don't be coming over here to hunt for it! I'll sicc my psychotic killer gecko on you!)
I paid attention during history lessons. sm
El Duce and Fat Moose were Mussolini's nicknames. I would love to discuss the facts, not debate (argue) political viewpoints because it distracts everyone away from reality and the facts. That is precisely what they want us all do.
Bullhockey, illegals are paid in cash, there is NO tax being taken out. nm
x
sounds like your vote is 'bought-and-paid-for'.
The amount of $$ paid out in benefits to smokers
the amount of tax revenue generated by the sale of tobacco. You don't seem to protest too loudly when it comes time to spend it and waste no time marginalizing and bashing people with an addiction. These are tired tactics designed to take the focus off of the REAL issues raised in this thread with regard to the economy and differences between party platforms, policies and plans. Just how long do ou think pubs can run and hide from the fact that what they have to offer is EXACTLY the same thing as what we all are running fast and far away from? Careful, your desperation is showing.
Senator Obama was a paid employee,
community organizer. He did not do this on a volunteer basis.
and don't forget, he paid the gov't back in something like 7 years? sm
Gourdpainter, you and I must be about the same age. I remember Lee Iacoca. He borrowed millions of dollars to bail out Chrysler. AND HE PAID IT BACK!! Before the note was due. That's the kind of person we need in Washington. A no-nonsense type of guy. One who will take it to the fat cats in their Armani suits and Gucci shoes and tell them..WE ARE FED UP AND PO'D AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.
Ok, off my soapbox.
Right on! We paid off our modest house/cars. We
nm
Not if they paid me could I watch that liberal garbage
nm
Just for you GP...I am not a paid "sm" I am an MT...and if you would have bothered to read...
the links I provided you would have understood why I said it is not over:
Curt Wrotnowksi's case, Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State, has been denied by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Docket #08A469 -- The application for stay and/or injunction addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
Update: Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.
The Justices denied the "stay' but have retained the "certori." It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College "elects" him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.
Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.
Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.
The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
the double whammy just paid 65% of my COBRA.....yee haa! nm
x
I agree - paid last card off today
The same thing here - my rates got raised on all my cards as of April, for no reason at all. I'm a good customer too, never late, never over limit. I'm going to try to live within my means, and let the banks live without my interest payments. As more people do that, maybe the banks will see that we are tired of being punished for playing by the rules so that the incompetent and unscrupulous can profit!
Sorry, these aren't bought and paid for crowds!!
xx
The reason "they" have their houses paid off - sm
is that they worked hard, were frugal, did not use credit cards unless they could pay the balance each month, did not buy a car for everyone in the family, did not have a TV in every room, did not have cell phones, their kids did not have all the latest "toys", and, yes, "they" are eligible for Medicare because they EARNED it. And they did all this on salaries that were just enough to get by on. How do I know this? My parents are a shining example.
So are you saying the company took the case pro bono, but paid Roberts.
If he wasn't paid, he did the work pro bono.
|
