• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Yet Another Obama Nominee w/Tax Issues

I wonder why people like this theme. I mean, the amount has been wildly different each time, and I bet if you take any group of people as large as this with this much income this sort of tax variation would be expected. Besides, is this supposed to mean Obama... I wouldn't really know what it would mean about him.

Besides, reading this case probably says more about the tax system than it does about Sebelius :p .
 
$8000 after interest? I say the same thing I said about the others. That's chicken feed at the level of money they're pushing around. I probably ****ed up my taxes by a proportional amount, and if the IRS comes after me, I'll start digging in my couch cushions to pay the penalty. I expect change back, though.
 
I'm sure it was just an honest mistake, like all the other democrats are making.
 
If this were a republican what would the response would be?

I have a pretty good idea it would be publicized much more than these few.
Geez, how many is it up to now anyway?
 
Disclaimer: I voted for Obama

If you apologize for all these tax-evading or "tax-mistake-making" nominees, then you are missing the point. The president of the United States has access to a vast number of highly qualified nominees for every cabinet post and every appointed position. Even if it's true that in any given pool of people there are some who have effed up their taxes, it's also true that knowing this in advance, Obama and his staff can weed out such people and nominate someone who lack such an albatross.

After three or four times making the same mistake, one could almost assume that Obama either doesn't learn from his mistakes, or at the very least thinks his poo does not stink (i.e., that he can nominate whoever he wants with impunity).
 
Dorian Gray said:
Disclaimer: I voted for Obama

If you apologize for all these tax-evading or "tax-mistake-making" nominees, then you are missing the point. The president of the United States has access to a vast number of highly qualified nominees for every cabinet post and every appointed position. Even if it's true that in any given pool of people there are some who have effed up their taxes, it's also true that knowing this in advance, Obama and his staff can weed out such people and nominate someone who lack such an albatross.

After three or four times making the same mistake, one could almost assume that Obama either doesn't learn from his mistakes, or at the very least thinks his poo does not stink (i.e., that he can nominate whoever he wants with impunity).
Click to expand...

Or option three, he directs the nominee to correct the tax issue by paying the underpayment and then discloses the issue to the Senate committee, thereby not losing every nominee whose tax returns were found wanting by Obama's own accountants, but also holding them to strict standards and fulfilling his promise to be transparent.

And this is a poor reflection on Obama how?
 
In this case, Sebelius submitted her tax returns to an accountant of her own choice, discovered the errors, paid the taxes, and notified everyone involved.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Disclaimer: I voted for Obama

If you apologize for all these tax-evading or "tax-mistake-making" nominees, then you are missing the point. The president of the United States has access to a vast number of highly qualified nominees for every cabinet post and every appointed position. Even if it's true that in any given pool of people there are some who have effed up their taxes, it's also true that knowing this in advance, Obama and his staff can weed out such people and nominate someone who lack such an albatross.

After three or four times making the same mistake, one could almost assume that Obama either doesn't learn from his mistakes, or at the very least thinks his poo does not stink (i.e., that he can nominate whoever he wants with impunity).
Click to expand...

Or he doesn't think the benefit of avoiding some "Hur hur, another tax cheat" jokes that will last for about a day is worth the cost of losing his first choice for a cabinet position that will help him for his entire term.
 
Unabogie said:
Or option three, he directs the nominee to correct the tax issue by paying the underpayment and then discloses the issue to the Senate committee, thereby not losing every nominee whose tax returns were found wanting by Obama's own accountants, but also holding them to strict standards and fulfilling his promise to be transparent.

And this is a poor reflection on Obama how?
Click to expand...


That sounds real nice, but excuse me if I just cant envision the master politician missing a political points opportunity like that.

No,they dont have a clue these nominess had these tax issues until it hit.
They are'nt vetting worth a crap or just dont care knowing the mainstream media wont make an issue of it anyway.
 
Drysdale said:
That sounds real nice, but excuse me if I just cant envision the master politician missing a political points opportunity like that.

No,they dont have a clue these nominess had these tax issues until it hit.
They are'nt vetting worth a crap or just dont care knowing the mainstream media wont make an issue of it anyway.
Click to expand...

Until it hit from where? All of these "hits" were first disclosed by the Obama administration.
 
Unabogie said:
Until it hit from where? All of these "hits" were first disclosed by the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

In support of that assertion:

Geithner:

During the vetting of Mr. Geithner late last year, the Obama transition team discovered the nominee had failed to pay the same taxes for 2001 and 2002. "Upon learning of this error on Nov. 21, 2008, Mr. Geithner immediately submitted payment for tax that would have been due in those years, plus interest," a transition aide said. The sum totaled $25,970.
Click to expand...
Daschle:

During the vetting process to become HHS Secretary, Daschle corrected the tax violation, voluntarily paying $101,943 in back taxes plus interest, working with his accountant to amend his tax returns for 2005 through 2007. Daschle reimbursed the IRS $31,462 in taxes and interest for tax year 2005; $35,546 for 2006; and $34,935, Daschle spokesperson Jenny Backus said.
Click to expand...
Sebelius

In Ms. Sebelius's case, an administration official said that the White House vetting process turned up some minor tax issues, but officials determined they were too insignificant to prevent her nomination. As a result, though, the official said, Ms. Sebelius hired her own certified public accountant to make sure her returns were in order.
Click to expand...
 
Funny, I keep hearing commercials on satellite radio for a company that will help you handle your problems with the IRS. They claim they have handled thousands of cases ranging from thousands of dollars to millions.

Either they are lying, or income tax problems are pretty common. The fact there is a company that can remain in business doing this (given the fact it is absolutely unncessary as the IRS will work with you directily) tells me that it is pretty widespread.
 
quixotecoyote said:
$8000 after interest? I say the same thing I said about the others. That's chicken feed at the level of money they're pushing around.
Click to expand...

If she had been the FIRST Obama nominee with tax problems, I'd agree that it is a non-issue.

But after being burned with three or four tax cheats as nominees, you'd think Obama would have realized he has used up the "ooops, we forgot to pay" excuse -- even if, as in this case, it might well be true.

He should have, in my view, made sure -- after his bitter experience -- that any nominee of his has no tax problems at all, not even small ones. As things are, he gives the impression that he simply doesn't care too much if his nominees have income tax problems or not.

Yes, the committee cleared her. Yes, her tax problems are objectively minor and would not, normally, be a reason to disqualify her. But that's why Obama's president: he is the decision maker, and he should overrule the committee and say that, no, right now, nobody who owes the IRS a dime is elegible for a job on his staff.
 
Skeptic said:
If she had been the FIRST Obama nominee with tax problems, I'd agree that it is a non-issue.

But after being burned with three or four tax cheats as nominees, you'd think Obama would have realized he has used up the "ooops, we forgot to pay" excuse -- even if, as in this case, it might well be true.

He should have, in my view, made sure -- after his bitter experience -- that any nominee of his has no tax problems at all, not even small ones. As things are, he gives the impression that he simply doesn't care too much if his nominees have income tax problems or not.

Yes, the committee cleared her. Yes, her tax problems are objectively minor and would not, normally, be a reason to disqualify her. But that's why Obama's president: he is the decision maker, and he should overrule the committee and say that, no, right now, nobody who owes the IRS a dime is elegible for a job on his staff.
Click to expand...
You hate the man. You believe that he and you disagree on most major issues.

What, objectively speaking, is a reason for him to turn her down? Ethics committee clears her? Hell, better than can be said of Sarah Palin.
 
This is clearly part of Obama's plan to pay down the national debt by nominating tax cheats who then have to pony up the missing payments.

Daschle: $140,000
Geithner: $34,000
Kirk: $10,000
Sebelius: $8,000
Solis: $6,400
Killefer: $1,000

That's about $200,000 back in America's pocket. Just a few trillion left to find!
 
GreyICE said:
What, objectively speaking, is a reason for him to turn her down?
Click to expand...

The fact that she is the sixth (or so) nominee of his for an important post that has tax problems.

Again, I agree her tax problems are minor. But noblesse oblige.
 
Skeptic said:
The fact that she is the sixth (or so) nominee of his for an important post that has tax problems.

Again, I agree her tax problems are minor. But noblesse oblige.
Click to expand...

So you don't have any rational reasons?

That's honestly what it sounds like. You have not questioned the qualifications, the ethics, or anything else about her.

You just suggested it might be bad PR if he appointed her. Well yeah. It might be bad PR if he appoints an atheist too. Doesn't make anyone's objections rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom