Ok, going to open the can of worms.

[sreekers]

Ok, so I am starting to have some questions here about the new administration and his picks to help him run the executive branch?

First off, if one of us were to owe over 100k in back taxes what would the penalty be? How would that have been resolved if it were one of us, legally speaking?

Second, is it wise to pick pick people who have problems paying their taxes, when our taxes fund their income? I am not saying they are bad picks, just wondering the wisdom in picking these people? Two withdrawals from consideration today because of these problems.

Next, do you think this bailout will work? I don't believe it will, and think its going to cost us more in the long term than it will help us now. My belief is that if the money isn't in the account you don't buy it. Those of you on this site who understand economics a little bit better than me please give me a realistic view on why this will work and won't work.

 

[danr55]

SREEKERS, as for one of us owing that much in taxes, prison would be a good option. It's called tax evasion when it's done purposefully. I'm sure that this will turn out differently though.. (So much for Obama's pledge about ethics!)

As for the bailout.. FDR tried to spend his way out of a depression and it didn't work. Wilson tried to spend his way out of a recession and created the depression that Roosevelt had to deal with. In the 50's Eisenhower had a recession that was headed down hill pretty quickly and Kennedy got us in volved in a war to get over it. History says that spending is not the way to end a depression or a recession.

The differnce between the two? When you're out of work, it's a depression. When the guy across the street is out of work but you're working, it's a recession.

 

[noharleyyet]

Ok, so I am starting to have some questions here about the new administration and his picks to help him run the executive branch?

1. The good 'ol boy system Scott...same way the GOP does it.

How would that have been resolved if it were one of us, legally speaking?

2. Stiff penalties, wage garnishment, frozen bank accounts, and real property seizure.

is it wise to pick pick people who have problems paying their taxes,

3. See #1

do you think this bailout will work?

4. I hope so but personally see it as a means for the 'ruling' party to advance their agenda and push pet projects they've been stifled on til now.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ok, so I am starting to have some questions here about the new administration and his picks to help him run the executive branch?

First off, if one of us were to owe over 100k in back taxes what would the penalty be? How would that have been resolved if it were one of us, legally speaking?

If you eliminated everybody who makes over $200k per year and DID NOT have a tax issue in their past you would not a very big candidate pool to choose from.

Most of these "issues" are because people who are NOT employers become employers when they hire nannies, caretakers, and other domestic staff. It ain't "evasion", it ain't "criminal", it is just not something they knew how to do.

Yes, they should have hired an accountant to do it for them, but it is hard to have "moral outrage" for people that do what 90% of the other people do.

Sreekers, not sure what state you live in, but do you have a sales tax? Do you pay sales tax on things you order from out of state and have UPS deliver to you?

 

[brymoore]

Bailout - we'll see banks who received TARP funds failing this year. The government will have to decide if a further injection of funds is needed or do they hint to another bank to buy them or do they let the bank fail.

Banks are just trying to stay alive right now.

 

[Nemont]

When McCain picked Sarah Palin the democrats demanded to know who did the vetting of Palin. Why wouldn't it be a legitimate question asking who is doing Obama's vetting of nominees?

There is a pretty big difference between not paying the withholding taxes on a nanny and outright not paying over $120,000 worth of taxes. Also Daschle had to know that the tax deal was going to come up and he did nothing to fix it until late in the game. At least Geithner paid up once presented with the bill.

I don't know if "moral outrage" is what was asked. I think the word "question" was used. If you had concerns over how a losing VP candidate was vetted why wouldn't you have concerns over how cabinet nominees are vetted. It brings into question how competent the rest of his picks are and how much wasn't uncovered.

Also how can somebody like Daschle not have people hired to take care of his personal business? Do you believe that a guy who served on both the Finance and Ethics committee didn't understand how to pay his taxes? Come on.

Tell me that 90% of people forget to pay over $120,000 in taxes. Geithner and Killefer I could actually kind of see how they didn't pay their taxes. Daschle no way.


Nemont

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

If you eliminated everybody who makes over $200k per year and DID NOT have a tax issue in their past you would not a very big candidate pool to choose from.

Most of these "issues" are because people who are NOT employers become employers when they hire nannies, caretakers, and other domestic staff. It ain't "evasion", it ain't "criminal", it is just not something they knew how to do.

Yes, they should have hired an accountant to do it for them, but it is hard to have "moral outrage" for people that do what 90% of the other people do.

Sreekers, not sure what state you live in, but do you have a sales tax? Do you pay sales tax on things you order from out of state and have UPS deliver to you?

I printed that out just so I could wipe my azz with it! LOL That was you worst comeback ever. Where did you come up with 90%, that would mean just 10% of the population wasn't a lawyer or in office. John

 

[JoseCuervo]

When McCain picked Sarah Palin the democrats demanded to know who did the vetting of Palin. Why wouldn't it be a legitimate question asking who is doing Obama's vetting of nominees?

There is a pretty big difference between not paying the withholding taxes on a nanny and outright not paying over $120,000 worth of taxes. Also Daschle had to know that the tax deal was going to come up and he did nothing to fix it until late in the game. At least Geithner paid up once presented with the bill.

I don't know if "moral outrage" is what was asked. I think the word "question" was used. If you had concerns over how a losing VP candidate was vetted why wouldn't you have concerns over how cabinet nominees are vetted. It brings into question how competent the rest of his picks are and how much wasn't uncovered.

Also how can somebody like Daschle not have people hired to take care of his personal business? Do you believe that a guy who served on both the Finance and Ethics committee didn't understand how to pay his taxes? Come on.

Tell me that 90% of people forget to pay over $120,000 in taxes. Geithner and Killefer I could actually kind of see how they didn't pay their taxes. Daschle no way.


Nemont

I'll defer to your specific moral outrage on Daschle if you will defer to me on general moral outrage on rich people who try to pay as low of taxes as possible, and, sometimes have amounts past due with the IRS.

 

[noharleyyet]

If you eliminated everybody who makes over $200k per year and DID NOT have a tax issue in their past you would not a very big candidate pool to choose from.

Most of these "issues" are because people who are NOT employers become employers when they hire nannies, caretakers, and other domestic staff. It ain't "evasion", it ain't "criminal", it is just not something they knew how to do.

Yes, they should have hired an accountant to do it for them, but it is hard to have "moral outrage" for people that do what 90% of the other people do.

Sreekers, not sure what state you live in, but do you have a sales tax? Do you pay sales tax on things you order from out of state and have UPS deliver to you?

I agree with Draftstud: disappointing and charmin worthy.

 

[Whiskers]

I'll defer to your specific moral outrage on Daschle if you will defer to me on general moral outrage on rich people who try to pay as low of taxes as possible, and, sometimes have amounts past due with the IRS.
__________________

I will give you that. Everyone should pay their fair share. Those that don't should face the same penalities as everyone else.
I don't think the bail out is going to do anything but keep the rich, rich. The big bonuses are still being handed out, and Obama is outraged. He should demand all that bonus money back, with intrest.

 

[Nemont]

I'll defer to your specific moral outrage on Daschle if you will defer to me on general moral outrage on rich people who try to pay as low of taxes as possible, and, sometimes have amounts past due with the IRS.

I think I have already defered to you on that. Daschle though is an entirely different deal then Geithner and Killefer. I really don't have any moral outrage rather I can't figure out how a guy like Daschle would get himself in such a situation. IMO he cannot plead ignorance that he didn't know that he had to pay taxes on his income.

I don't buy Dick Durbin explanation that Daschle was "overwhelmed" by his new found wealth in the private sector. No moral outrage on my part just observing the process.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

This New York Times editorial is what did Daschle in. In it they give Obama a one tax cheat mulligan. I think what/how/and how much Tom earned in the private sector in the last few years, was what brought the NYT to roll on him.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03tue1.html

As for Geithner, Nemont, I have to disagree. His tax "mistakes" are way more an issue than Daschle's.

Look's to me like Geithner may end up resigning over this.....we'll see.

 

[BigHornRam]

So will Geithner be next?

First it was Reverend Wright, and now Daschle. Obama is getting good at throwing people under the bus.......From the A. P..........

“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,” Obama said near the end of a day of jarring developments, a little more than 24 hours after he had said he was “absolutely” committed to Daschle’s confirmation.

 

[Nemont]

Ummm... Geithner has already passed muster and was confirmed.


Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

Ummmmm..... maybe he will be talked into resigning, or get sick, or worse..........

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ummm... Geithner has already passed muster and was confirmed.


Nemont

I am not sure that BigWhore quite understands the confirmation process. But, I guess is new found interest in watching cabinet confirmations will give him a civics lesson that he must have missed in 8th grade.

 

[jabber]

Good thing for him Clinton isn't still in office....

 

[BigHornRam]

Look's to me like Geithner may end up resigning over this.....we'll see.

Jose, I learnt enough in 8th grade to know you have to be confirmed before you resign.

 

[sreekers]

My question today is with this cap on big banking salaries, who is going to cap the big gov. spending? This bill keeps getting higher and higher.

 

[BigHornRam]

My question today is with this cap on big banking salaries, who is going to cap the big gov. spending? This bill keeps getting higher and higher.

Barney Frank is sreeks ........

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has this very blunt message for bankers:

“People really hate you, and they’re starting to hate us because we’re hanging out with you. And you have to help us deal with that.”

The financial institutions that need congressional help “need to avoid being stupid,” Frank told reporters Tuesday during a briefing on his agenda as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

That means being ready to swallow tough executive compensation restrictions and greater openness about how financial institutions are spending government money, Frank said.