Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) How many Americans on average per year as a % would cheat on their taxes though? Homer Simpson did. Does that make him unpatriotic? It isn't so much cheating, but the average American can not truly understand the totality of the tax code. Errors are made, and corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) Agreed. But we have had these sorts of surprises for 20+ years. Are we seriously going to believe any administration can solve this? We have an entire process, including the hearings. I'm not going to blame any President or staff when the process turns up these sorts of issues. When these sort of issues are not discovered until the person takes office, then we can look at the process and begin to see where mistakes were made. So while some go flipping based on who the President is, I'm staying consistent. It's kind of nice I get your point, Tex. But, did the process find this out or was it some blogger or the like? (It's a legit question, I don't really know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) It isn't so much cheating, but the average American can not truly understand the totality of the tax code. Errors are made, and corrected. And usually with penalties and late fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) It isn't so much cheating, but the average American can not truly understand the totality of the tax code. Errors are made, and corrected. I understand what you're saying, would it still go on your record though as cheating on your taxes etc. (and here's hoping I don't on mine upcoming). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) I get your point, Tex. But, did the process find this out or was it some blogger or the like? (It's a legit question, I don't really know) And I would consider the public as part of the process. The names are released and all of a sudden many, many, people get involved. I always like the public getting involved. Bottom line for me, and ymmv, I'm done expecting any vetting process to be 100% fool proof. No administration has managed it for a very long time. To me it becomes silly partisan b.s. which flips each time the party changes. And in the back of my mind, I knew this would happen, and when I was saying the same thing for Dubya, I knew the day would come when I could come to a Dems defense as well and it is going to happen for the next Rep President. So, I ask my fellow American GOPs, why not be consistent today and say, at least it was caught before the nominee was confirmed. Because y'all know this will never end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 How do you rack up $120k in taxes on a driver and car in 3 years, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshot7 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Clearly, the vetting process did not work the way it was supposed to - but considering how fast the transition happens, what are you gonna do? Note: the Left are not giving passes on this stuff. I saw Rachel Maddow call Obama out a few days ago. (And to Alpha, about his original post: Paying taxes IS patriotic. Doesnt mean if you f*** up, you're not patriotic. Saluting the flag is patriotic, but it doesn't mean that if you don't salute the flag, you're not patriotic.) What did Obama say about using patriotism as a bludgeon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) How do you rack up $120k in taxes on a driver and car in 3 years, anyway? Pretty simple. You spend like $500k on a car. In other words...you drive a lot and take a limo everywhere, and you don't realize it's a problem because someone else is footing the bill. Which is of course...a big part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) And I would consider the public as part of the process. The names are released and all of a sudden many, many, people get involved. I always like the public getting involved. Bottom line for me, and ymmv, I'm done expecting any vetting process to be 100% fool proof. No administration has managed it for a very long time. To me it becomes silly partisan b.s. which flips each time the party changes. And in the back of my mind, I knew this would happen, and when I was saying the same thing for Dubya, I knew the day would come when I could come to a Dems defense as well and it is going to happen for the next Rep President. So, I ask my fellow American GOPs, why not be consistent today and say, at least it was caught before the nominee was confirmed. Because y'all know this will never end. OK. I hear ya. I thought you meant the "official" process. For the most part, I'm with you, I believe. I don't sit hear and believe that Obama knew that Daschle didn't pay his taxes and decided to nominate him anyway. My main problem, and this is a problem I have with both sides, is that he still defended the pick once the tax "evasion" was made public. And continued to defend until Daschle pulled himself out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:42 AM) OK. I hear ya. I thought you meant the "official" process. For the most part, I'm with you, I believe. I don't sit hear and believe that Obama knew that Daschle didn't pay his taxes and decided to nominate him anyway. My main problem, and this is a problem I have with both sides, is that he still defended the pick once the tax "evasion" was made public. And continued to defend until Daschle pulled himself out. That is a fair question and I really dislike the ethical quandary that puts the country in. On one hand, we want the best results with every pick. On the other hand, we want perfection, or pretty damn close to it, before we confirm somebody. When we start tossing stuff like this on a scale, it begins to stink. But getting back to the original comment by Biden. I disagree. Just paying taxes does not make you patriotic. There is so much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Just to throw this in the mix as well: I disagree with the pick of Daschle on different grounds...if the people of South Dakota didn't want him to represent them anymore, why should he be elevated to a position of leadership for the entire United States? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) How do you rack up $120k in taxes on a driver and car in 3 years, anyway? Basically certain perks are considered taxable income. For example, if your company has a "crash pad" in Mexico for employees to use when it is more convenient than crossing back into the US and returning, your nights living there could be considered income because they are providing housing. And while they are scrutinizing this, they may see flights from Texas to South Carolina with a long layover in Chicago without any natural business dealings in Chicago. A portion of your plane ticket could be considered income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) Just to throw this in the mix as well: I disagree with the pick of Daschle on different grounds...if the people of South Dakota didn't want him to represent them anymore, why should he be elevated to a position of leadership for the entire United States? Two different jobs, two different skill sets. I can see that. Many great CEOs of corporations would be terrible on the campaign trail and never be elected, that doesn't mean they would not be excellent picks to run a large bureaucracy. Gates comes to mind. So not getting elected doesn't concern me too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:52 PM) Just to throw this in the mix as well: I disagree with the pick of Daschle on different grounds...if the people of South Dakota didn't want him to represent them anymore, why should he be elevated to a position of leadership for the entire United States? The president thought he was the best man for a job and a specific goal he had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) Two different jobs, two different skill sets. I can see that. Many great CEOs of corporations would be terrible on the campaign trail and never be elected, that doesn't mean they would not be excellent picks to run a large bureaucracy. Gates comes to mind. So not getting elected doesn't concern me too much. QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) The president thought he was the best man for a job and a specific goal he had in mind. Yeah, I get that, but I still don't like it. It's like the people of my church voting down an usher and then we introduce him as our new Deacon. (No, we don't vote for ushers. Just saying) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) Yeah, I get that, but I still don't like it. It's like the people of my church voting down an usher and then we introduce him as our new Deacon. (No, we don't vote for ushers. Just saying) Different circumstances though. Assuming he wasn't appointed for a Cabinet appointment and he had to be elected to head HHS (and also assuming that wouldn't be a mess), who's to say he doesn't win that election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) Yeah, I get that, but I still don't like it. It's like the people of my church voting down an usher and then we introduce him as our new Deacon. (No, we don't vote for ushers. Just saying) It should make someone pause. But I think the skill sets are sufficiently different. My Deacon would suck at running our basketball league. I wouldn't want the guy that runs our men's basketball league, leading the choir, and the choir director would be the last person to run a youth program (he's old and ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz) and our choir director would never win an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts