PDA

View Full Version : Obama Fair Share? Not if you work in White House


HonestChieffan
01-26-2012, 09:01 AM
36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes


http://www.investors.com/image/ObamaAddressesOvalOffStaffSouza_600.jpg.cms

How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Because how unfair -- indeed, un-American -- it is for an office worker like, say, Warren Buffet's secretary to dutifully pay her taxes, while some well-to-do people with better educations and higher incomes end up paying a much smaller tax rate.

Or, worse, skipping their taxes altogether.

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven't paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama's White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That's up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration's last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama's aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

The IRS' 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees' tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes.

The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. That's up 3% in the past year.

That scale of delinquency could annoy voters, hard-pressed by their own costs, fears and stubbornly high unemployment despite Joe Biden's many promises.

The tax offenders include employees of the U.S. Senate who help write the laws imposed on everyone else. They owe $2.1 million. Workers in the House of Representatives owe $8.5 million, Department of Education employees owe $4.3 million and over at Homeland Security, 4,697 workers owe about $37 million. Active duty military members owe more than $100 million.

The Treasury Department, where Obama nominee Tim Geithner had to pay up $42,000 in his own back taxes before being confirmed as secretary, has 1,181 other employees with delinquent taxes totaling $9.3 million.

As usual, the Postal Service, with more than 600,000 workers, has the most offenders (25,640), who also owe the most -- almost $270 million. Veterans Affairs has 11,659 workers owing the IRS $151 million while the Energy Department that was so quick to dish out more than $500 million to the Solyndra folks has 322 employees owing $5 million.

The country's chief law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, has 2,069 employees who are nearly $17 million behind in taxes. Like Operation Fast and Furious, Attorney General Eric Holder has apparently missed them too.

As with ordinary people, the IRS attempts to negotiate back-tax payment plans with all delinquents, whose names cannot be released. But according to current federal law, the only federal employees who can be fired for not paying taxes are IRS workers.

http://news.investors.com/Article/599002/201201260818/obama-white-house-staff-back-taxes.htm

La literatura
01-26-2012, 09:21 AM
Owing back taxes isn't a criminal thing at all. This happens to a lot of people. It's very doubtful that they are attempting any sort of deceit.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2012, 09:32 AM
I wouldn't know, I pay mine quarterly and on time

La literatura
01-26-2012, 09:48 AM
I wouldn't know, I pay mine quarterly and on time

I like your idea of jumping to the conclusion of deceit, fraud, and corruption, though.

Amnorix
01-26-2012, 10:08 AM
Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama's White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That's up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration's last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama's aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.



So $37MM divided by 457 aides works out to about $81,000 per person. A good salary, but nothing to get all that exicteda bout. I find neither $172K for a top aid, nor 100 people making more than 100K (incluidng the 21 making $172 of course), shocking or remotely out of line.

As usual, an effort to get people excited about some kind of gross impropriety which, once you break things down, falls flat on its face.

|Zach|
01-26-2012, 10:12 AM
LMAO HCF LMAO

HonestChieffan
01-26-2012, 10:20 AM
I like your idea of jumping to the conclusion of deceit, fraud, and corruption, though.

I am that way. Thats what the IRS thinks about not paying your taxes. You left out evasion

King_Chief_Fan
01-26-2012, 10:40 AM
I like your idea of jumping to the conclusion of deceit, fraud, and corruption, though.

it is almost as good as your idea of so what

talastan
01-26-2012, 11:05 AM
I'm just waiting for someone in the administration to propose that we bailout their back-due taxes! :thumb:



















:Lin:

vailpass
01-26-2012, 11:06 AM
Look at that picture. A framed painting of President Washington with obama's smug-for-no-reason face defiling the space directly below. Two completely opposite ends of the spectrum if ever there was such a thing.

patteeu
01-26-2012, 11:11 AM
The reaction to this thread confuses me.

Literature - Do we know whether deceit is involved here or not? And even if it isn't, is it your position that people in power shouldn't have to keep up with their tax payments (at the same time their administration is trying to raise taxes on the rest of us, no less)? If nothing else, this should be a huge red flag about a tax system that is overly complex at the same time the Obama administration wants to add additional complexity.

Amnorix - Are you focusing exclusively on the salaries of administration aides with your comment? What about the $23k average tax delinquency of 36 of those aides? Does that fall flat on it's face too?

|Zach| - What's so funny?

patteeu
01-26-2012, 11:14 AM
Look at that picture. A framed painting of President Washington with obama's smug-for-no-reason face defiling the space directly below. Two completely opposite ends of the spectrum if ever there was such a thing.

I read something this morning that surprised me a little bit. After adjusting for inflation, George Washington is the richest president we ever had (http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/01/25/the-richest-president-ever-is/) with an estimated net worth of approximately $500 million in today's dollars.

blaise
01-26-2012, 11:34 AM
The reaction to this thread confuses me.

Literature - Do we know whether deceit is involved here or not? And even if it isn't, is it your position that people in power shouldn't have to keep up with their tax payments (at the same time their administration is trying to raise taxes on the rest of us, no less)? If nothing else, this should be a huge red flag about a tax system that is overly complex at the same time the Obama administration wants to add additional complexity.

Amnorix - Are you focusing exclusively on the salaries of administration aides with your comment? What about the $23k average tax delinquency of 36 of those aides? Does that fall flat on it's face too?

|Zach| - What's so funny?

Yeah, I don't know what's so outlandish about questioning why the aids of a President who talks about paying a fair share are delinquent on their taxes.
There may be a reasonable explanation, like they're disputing the amounts, but it's not like it's some wild, ridiculous question.

vailpass
01-26-2012, 11:57 AM
I read something this morning that surprised me a little bit. After adjusting for inflation, George Washington is the richest president we ever had (http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/01/25/the-richest-president-ever-is/) with a estimated net worth of approximately $500 million in today's dollars.

Cool.No common pine teeth for him, bet he was sporting the mahogany molars. Plantation living ftw.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2012, 12:01 PM
To many Obama supporters, the rules don't apply to Obama and his staff. Its really pretty simple.

alpha_omega
01-26-2012, 01:23 PM
I am with HCF on this one...it's either right or wrong...and this seems to be the latter.

That being said, i would like to know more details.

mikey23545
01-26-2012, 02:06 PM
Owing back taxes isn't a criminal thing at all. This happens to a lot of people. It's very doubtful that they are attempting any sort of deceit.

Someday when you move out and have to pay taxes yourself, you'll understand..

vailpass
01-26-2012, 02:10 PM
Someday when you move out and have to pay taxes yourself, you'll understand..

He doesn't need the experience, he already read a book about it.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 02:45 PM
The reaction to this thread confuses me.

Literature - Do we know whether deceit is involved here or not? And even if it isn't, is it your position that people in power shouldn't have to keep up with their tax payments (at the same time their administration is trying to raise taxes on the rest of us, no less)? If nothing else, this should be a huge red flag about a tax system that is overly complex at the same time the Obama administration wants to add additional complexity.

Apparently some know that deceit is involved. It's Obama's administration, and they are hypocrites. They want other people to pay taxes, but they also want to get away with not paying any taxes themselves. "fair share? Not if you work in the white house."

No, that's not my position. My position is that there's no reason to think the white house is full of people who want and are trying to cheat on their taxes. These things happened under a Bush administration, too. it says nothing about the good or bad of a particular policy the administration is currently trying to push.

patteeu
01-26-2012, 03:33 PM
Apparently some know that deceit is involved. It's Obama's administration, and they are hypocrites. They want other people to pay taxes, but they also want to get away with not paying any taxes themselves. "fair share? Not if you work in the white house."

No, that's not my position. My position is that there's no reason to think the white house is full of people who want and are trying to cheat on their taxes. These things happened under a Bush administration, too. it says nothing about the good or bad of a particular policy the administration is currently trying to push.

I don't see where you're finding deceit in HCF's OP. They may just arrogantly think they're above the law without caring whether anyone knows about it or not.

blaise
01-26-2012, 03:41 PM
"fair share" doesn't imply deceit. It implies that they aren't doing what they should do, ethically -pay their taxes on time. The same way when Obama says people should pay their, "Fair share," I don't take it to mean he's saying those people are doing anything illegal. He's saying that, if things are fair, they should pay more.
I'm not sure why there would be a different set of standards here. When Obama says people should pay a "fair share" is he accusing them of deceit and fraud?
I didn't read HCF say the White House aides needed to be arrested or anything, just that they're delinquent on taxes. If they're people that are saying we should all pay a "fair share" then it's a legitimate question to ask why they haven't paid what the IRS says they fairly should.

orange
01-26-2012, 03:48 PM
The IRS tracks the voluntary compliance of federal workers and retirees each year and breaks down the delinquents by agency. There is no comparable data to compare the compliance rates of taxpayers in the private sector, but in past years when the IRS did track compliance rates of private and public sector workers, the delinquency rates were about the same.


No lying here:

The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. That's up 3% in the past year.

According to records released by the Internal Revenue Service, active and retired federal employees and military personnel combined owed $3,420,168,684 in unpaid taxes for 2010, an increase of more than 3 percent over the previous year.

As has been the case in past years, the agency with employees who owe the most in unpaid taxes is the U.S. Postal Service, where 25,640 employees owe nearly $270 million. Employees in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives owe more the $10 million. Active duty military owe more than $100 million.

LMAOROFLLMAO

OBAMA BAD!

orange
01-26-2012, 03:52 PM
Let's repeat this:


but in past years when the IRS did track compliance rates of private and public sector workers, the delinquency rates were about the same.

Sounds pretty equal to me.

patteeu
01-26-2012, 03:58 PM
Let's repeat this:



Sounds pretty equal to me.

What's your point? It's OK because they did it too? If only you could find data about the Bush administration so you could wrap it all up in a nice blame-Bush bow.

dirk digler
01-26-2012, 04:04 PM
"fair share" doesn't imply deceit. It implies that they aren't doing what they should do, ethically -pay their taxes on time. The same way when Obama says people should pay their, "Fair share," I don't take it to mean he's saying those people are doing anything illegal. He's saying that, if things are fair, they should pay more.
I'm not sure why there would be a different set of standards here. When Obama says people should pay a "fair share" is he accusing them of deceit and fraud?
I didn't read HCF say the White House aides needed to be arrested or anything, just that they're delinquent on taxes. If they're people that are saying we should all pay a "fair share" then it's a legitimate question to ask why they haven't paid what the IRS says they fairly should.

I tend to agree.

I more interested in who these people are that aren't paying their taxes. There is roughly 1700 employees that work at the WH and about half are probably career(long-term) employees.

I would also like to see the list of congressmen that are behind on their taxes.

It is honestly inexcusable except for military members if they are out of country.

orange
01-26-2012, 04:07 PM
What's your point? It's OK because they did it too? If only you could find data about the Bush administration so you could wrap it all up in a nice blame-Bush bow.

"How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their "fair share" of taxes."

Obama's approval going into the toilet in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

LMAO

blaise
01-26-2012, 04:08 PM
What's your point? It's OK because they did it too? If only you could find data about the Bush administration so you could wrap it all up in a nice blame-Bush bow.

It's sad really. You don't think Obama wants his aides up to date on their taxes? I bet he does. If he knows they're delinquent, and I bet he does, he probably wants someone to find out why just to make sure things are on the up-and-up.
But apparently it's not ok for anyone else to bring it up.

blaise
01-26-2012, 04:09 PM
orange seemingly unable to comprehend the term, "aides" and is instead focusing on bold facing words and posting smilies.

orange
01-26-2012, 04:12 PM
If only you could find data about the Bush administration so you could wrap it all up in a nice blame-Bush bow.

No problemo.

2008 (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=1478352)
2007 (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=1034585)
2005 (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=532790)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_DawJTCHuL3c/S9i-qe-gxjI/AAAAAAAAENg/YG7APKL0gZA/PregoImage%5B4%5D.jpg

... which, as we all know, led to this ...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/armyyouhave/bush-frogmarch.jpg

dirk digler
01-26-2012, 04:14 PM
Hell Obama is doing better than Bush again only 36 vs 58 for bush.

Winner winner chicken dinner :D :p

orange
01-26-2012, 04:15 PM
I more interested in who these people are that aren't paying their taxes.

About half the total is owed by MILITARY RETIREES.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 04:24 PM
I don't see where you're finding deceit in HCF's OP. They may just arrogantly think they're above the law without caring whether anyone knows about it or not.

Yes, they may think they're above the law. Most likely, a mistake or misunderstanding occured. That's what usually happens. Of course, we could imply that the Administration is full of scoundrols and thieves. Or we could presume my line of thought, which in addition to being much more civil, is more realistic.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 04:28 PM
I didn't read HCF say the White House aides needed to be arrested or anything, just that they're delinquent on taxes.

I didn't read HCF to say they need to be arrested either. But I am familiar enough with HCF to recognize his modus operandi, which is essentially that Obama Administration = bad; anything that points in that general direction = good.

dirk digler
01-26-2012, 04:30 PM
About half the total is owed by MILITARY RETIREES.

not good

La literatura
01-26-2012, 04:30 PM
Oh boy, it happened under Bush. Why!? Why GOD!?! The point was almost so there. It was almost the straw that broke the Obama-camel's back.

blaise
01-26-2012, 04:30 PM
I didn't read HCF to say they need to be arrested either. But I am familiar enough with HCF to recognize his modus operandi, which is essentially that Obama Administration = bad; anything that points in that general direction = good.

So, sort of like orange, but in the opposite direction.

dirk digler
01-26-2012, 04:31 PM
I didn't read HCF to say they need to be arrested either. But I am familiar enough with HCF to recognize his modus operandi, which is essentially that Obama Administration = bad; anything that points in that general direction = good.

Yep. Hcf has ODS and syphilis

orange
01-26-2012, 04:32 PM
About half the total is owed by MILITARY RETIREES.

not good

They need it to fund their astounding donations to Ron Paul.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 04:32 PM
So, sort of like orange, but in the opposite direction.

orange's quality isn't in that he's not partisan (he clearly takes the liberal, pro-Obama line more than anyone on here), but that he's strikingly thorough and diligent in his sources.

I wish I could say the same for HonestChieffan.

patteeu
01-26-2012, 04:48 PM
Yes, they may think they're above the law. Most likely, a mistake or misunderstanding occured. That's what usually happens. Of course, we could imply that the Administration is full of scoundrols and thieves. Or we could presume my line of thought, which in addition to being much more civil, is more realistic.

So we don't really know whether they're deceitful tax cheats, arrogant scofflaws, or innocent victims of an overly complex tax code. That's kind of how I read HCF's thread to begin with. I don't see any reason to jump to conclusions either way, but it seems noteworthy when the WH calls for us to pay a larger share while several of their own aren't even paying what they owe now.

blaise
01-26-2012, 04:53 PM
orange's quality isn't in that he's not partisan (he clearly takes the liberal, pro-Obama line more than anyone on here), but that he's strikingly thorough and diligent in his sources.

I wish I could say the same for HonestChieffan.

So when you said he was jumping to a conclusion of deceit and fraud it was an assumption. He didn't actually do that.

Amnorix
01-26-2012, 05:08 PM
Amnorix - Are you focusing exclusively on the salaries of administration aides with your comment? What about the $23k average tax delinquency of 36 of those aides? Does that fall flat on it's face too?



There's no data given to make any kind of assessment. Are these amounts in dispute? Is this any different from the average for people in these income ranges? Hard to really tell whether this is unacceptably absurd, or just the ordinary issues that higher income people have in dealing with the IRS.

Amnorix
01-26-2012, 05:09 PM
To many Obama supporters, the rules don't apply to Obama and his staff. Its really pretty simple.


That's flat wrong. If the amounts are owed and not in dispute, they should be paid. It's THAT simple.

blaise
01-26-2012, 05:12 PM
There's no data given to make any kind of assessment. Are these amounts in dispute? Is this any different from the average for people in these income ranges? Hard to really tell whether this is unacceptably absurd, or just the ordinary issues that higher income people have in dealing with the IRS.

I don't know about the validity of the numbers, but I would say White House aides should be held to a higher standard than your average person. Not legally, but really they should be for appearances. At least, I would want them to be if I were the President.

RedNeckRaider
01-26-2012, 05:50 PM
That's flat wrong. If the amounts are owed and not in dispute, they should be paid. It's THAT simple.

And they have not. It's THAT simple~

mlyonsd
01-26-2012, 05:56 PM
It's very simple. If you're going to keep throwing out the everyone should pay their fair share card on the campaign trail make sure all your employees are. Otherwise expect to get hit up on it.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 07:26 PM
So when you said he was jumping to a conclusion of deceit and fraud it was an assumption. He didn't actually do that.

No, I think he implied that the Obama Administration is a bunch of thieves and hypocrites. I'm placing the thread into historical context.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 07:27 PM
It's very simple. If you're going to keep throwing out the everyone should pay their fair share card on the campaign trail make sure all your employees are. Otherwise expect to get hit up on it.

Obama should be held accountable for this!

patteeu
01-26-2012, 07:32 PM
No, I think he implied that the Obama Administration is a bunch of thieves and hypocrites. I'm placing the thread into historical context.

I don't think that's a fair interpretation.

mlyonsd
01-26-2012, 07:46 PM
Obama should be held accountable for this!We're getting into the serious campaign season. At some point you might want to think about bringing your A game.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 08:03 PM
I don't think that's a fair interpretation.

You don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of HCF's motives and reasons for posting this?

La literatura
01-26-2012, 08:03 PM
We're getting into the serious campaign season. At some point you might want to think about bringing your A game.

I have no interest in campaigning for Obama.

patteeu
01-26-2012, 08:03 PM
You don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of HCF's motives and reasons for posting this?

No, I don't.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 08:05 PM
No, I don't.

This was an exchange I had with HCF in this thread:

"I like your idea of jumping to the conclusion of deceit, fraud, and corruption, though."

"I am that way."

patteeu
01-26-2012, 08:11 PM
This was an exchange I had with HCF in this thread:

"I like your idea of jumping to the conclusion of deceit, fraud, and corruption, though."

"I am that way."

Here's the first exchange you had with him in this thread:

Owing back taxes isn't a criminal thing at all. This happens to a lot of people. It's very doubtful that they are attempting any sort of deceit.

I wouldn't know, I pay mine quarterly and on time

mlyonsd
01-26-2012, 08:11 PM
I have no interest in campaigning for Obama.Doesn't matter. You don't see the political irony in this report that the government released? From a strictly political POV?

La literatura
01-26-2012, 08:19 PM
Here's the first exchange you had with him in this thread:

Okay. And then I had a further exchange in which he admitted he jumped to a conclusion of bad faith by Administration workers. And that's how I pegged him. I was right. It turns out, beyond all reasonable belief, that HCF does post things that in part are intended to show the bad faith of administration workers under Obama.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 08:24 PM
Doesn't matter. You don't see the political irony in this report that the government released? From a strictly political POV?

I don't know what a political point of view is. I think it would be more ironic if the Administration's argument was about curbing tax delinquency and back taxes, and about how simple the process is.

But it's not about that. It's about higher taxes for rich Americans.

Is this ironic, though, in the sense that Obama wants more taxes, and administration workers still owe taxes? Yes. Does it matter? Does it hurt his argument? Does it make any difference? No. Does it sound good for Administration opponents? I suppose so.

patteeu
01-26-2012, 08:34 PM
Okay. And then I had a further exchange in which he admitted he jumped to a conclusion of bad faith by Administration workers. And that's how I pegged him. I was right. It turns out, beyond all reasonable belief, that HCF does post things that in part are intended to show the bad faith of administration workers under Obama.

You mean that after you badgered him he finally gave you the answer you wanted (after first giving you the opposite answer) and you feel vindicated by that? It's not clear to me that he was serious with that second answer.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 08:39 PM
You mean that after you badgered him he finally gave you the answer you wanted (after first giving you the opposite answer) and you feel vindicated by that? It's not clear to me that he was serious with that second answer.

LMAO I badgered him? I never even asked him to reply. Are you suggesting I have the power to compel HCF to answer something against his will and actual intention?

"To many Obama supporters, the rules don't apply to Obama and his staff. Its really pretty simple."

What's really pretty simple is to set this thread into it's proper framework of HCF's bullish attitude opposing Barack Obama.

mnchiefsguy
01-26-2012, 08:47 PM
LMAO I badgered him? I never even asked him to reply. Are you suggesting I have the power to compel HCF to answer something against his will and actual intention?

"To many Obama supporters, the rules don't apply to Obama and his staff. Its really pretty simple."

What's really pretty simple is to set this thread into it's proper framework of HCF's bullish attitude opposing Barack Obama.

HCF's bullish attacks are no more bullish than some who defend Obama, or who attacked his predecessor.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2012, 09:01 PM
I didn't read HCF to say they need to be arrested either. But I am familiar enough with HCF to recognize his modus operandi, which is essentially that Obama Administration = bad; anything that points in that general direction = good.

When you grow up you will learn to differentiate right from wrong and not filter based on your bias. At this point you have no ability to do so.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2012, 09:03 PM
You don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of HCF's motives and reasons for posting this?

Facts do not stand your foolish test of motive. Is it fact or not.

dirk digler
01-26-2012, 09:04 PM
When you grow up you will learn to differentiate right from wrong and not filter based on your bias. At this point you have no ability to do so.

You should take your own advice

La literatura
01-26-2012, 09:08 PM
When you grow up you will learn to differentiate right from wrong and not filter based on your bias. At this point you have no ability to do so.

Uh huh.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 09:09 PM
Facts do not stand your foolish test of motive. Is it fact or not.

Are only untrue statements used in motives?

mlyonsd
01-26-2012, 09:09 PM
I don't know what a political point of view is. I think it would be more ironic if the Administration's argument was about curbing tax delinquency and back taxes, and about how simple the process is.

But it's not about that. It's about higher taxes for rich Americans.

Is this ironic, though, in the sense that Obama wants more taxes, and administration workers still owe taxes? Yes. Does it matter? Does it hurt his argument? Does it make any difference? No. Does it sound good for Administration opponents? I suppose so.Has jAZ been teaching you shit? Seriously, you're heading to his level. And I miss jAZ.

petegz28
01-26-2012, 09:09 PM
Oligarchy

La literatura
01-26-2012, 09:10 PM
Has jAZ been teaching you shit? Seriously, you're heading to his level. And I miss jAZ.

What do I do that jAZ did?

mlyonsd
01-26-2012, 09:13 PM
What do I do that jAZ did?Talk around points when you don't like the way the conversation is going. He was/is a master.

La literatura
01-26-2012, 09:23 PM
Talk around points when you don't like the way the conversation is going. He was/is a master.

I haven't talked around anything.

mlyonsd
01-26-2012, 09:39 PM
I haven't talked around anything.Ok. I'll take your word for it.

Bewbies
01-27-2012, 12:23 AM
The mental gymnastics people attempt in politics is crazy. Rich don't pay enough tax, attack!!! Federal employees don't pay what they OWE DEFEND!!!

The problem with this, for ANY administration, is if you're out telling people they need to pay more you should damn well make sure the folks in your office are leading by example.

I don't care about the military folks, the regular federal job holder types. The folks working with, for and involved in leading our country need to lead by example. White House, Congress, Justice.

orange
01-27-2012, 03:31 AM
mental gymnastics

36 out of 457 owe. About the same rate as the private sector. But they're supposed to be saints.

blaise
01-27-2012, 06:57 AM
No, I think he implied that the Obama Administration is a bunch of thieves and hypocrites. I'm placing the thread into historical context.

I'm not sure what that does to dispute what I said, since you did actually say he jumped to the conclusion that there was fraud going on, that was an assumption, and he didn't actually say that.

stevieray
01-27-2012, 07:19 AM
I'm not sure what that does to dispute what I said, since you did actually say he jumped to the conclusion that there was fraud going on, that was an assumption, and he didn't actually say that.


does it matter? no.....LMAO

it's not about being honest...there are numerous examples of this...

corzine? sad, tragic, good intentions, etc.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 07:53 AM
And they have not. It's THAT simple~


No evidence either way as to whether or not they're in dispute. People get tangled up in arguments (legitimate arguments) all the time with the IRS. Sometimes they're right, sometimes the IRS is right.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 07:55 AM
When you grow up you will learn to differentiate right from wrong and not filter based on your bias. At this point you have no ability to do so.


I'm like all grown up and stuff, and I gotta say I agree with him. You are basically a Obama-administration-sucks-and-can-do-nothing-right posting machine. Sometimes the issues are serious and legitimate, and sometimes they are completely absurd bullshit. Quality doesn't seem to be a factor with you in deciding whether to post it, however. If it appears bad for the Obama Administration, no matter how superficial or insignificant (or even misleading), the onto CP it goes.

Just sayin'.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:00 AM
It's very simple. If you're going to keep throwing out the everyone should pay their fair share card on the campaign trail make sure all your employees are. Otherwise expect to get hit up on it.


Umm...he has no ability whatsoever to do so. First, he has no right of access to his employees tax records. Second, it's entirely possible that much/all of the unpaid taxes are subject to legitimate disputes.

Third and most importantly, I believe I read in this very thread that the law prohibits firing federal employees (other than IRS employees) for failing to pay their taxes.

So your position basically means that a President can either NEVER take the position Obama is currently taking, or he should violate the law to ensure that none of his employees have any kind of delinquent/disputed tax obligations.

Your insight on this matter makes no sense.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:03 AM
I read something this morning that surprised me a little bit. After adjusting for inflation, George Washington is the richest president we ever had (http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/01/25/the-richest-president-ever-is/) with an estimated net worth of approximately $500 million in today's dollars.


Yes and no.

His wealth was extremely illiquid -- tied up in land and slaves (similar to many other plantation owners). He was chronically short of cash, and forever indebted to merchants, in particular British merchants who factored for purchases of English goods and shipped to America. This is dealt in stunning (and often boring) detail in Chernow's book on Washington.

Indeed, Chernow speculates that one of the main reasons the South was willing to go along with the entire Revolution was that their dealings with British merchants and banks, and their chronic indebtedness to them, gave rise to tremendous feelings of dissatisfaction, powerlessness and even hatred.

stevieray
01-27-2012, 08:04 AM
I'm like all grown up and stuff, and I gotta say I agree with him. You are basically a Obama-administration-sucks-and-can-do-nothing-right posting machine. Sometimes the issues are serious and legitimate, and sometimes they are completely absurd bullshit. Quality doesn't seem to be a factor with you in deciding whether to post it, however. If it appears bad for the Obama Administration, no matter how superficial or insignificant (or even misleading), the onto CP it goes.

Just sayin'.

yes, we know...tell us how we should act and feel.

blaise
01-27-2012, 08:04 AM
Umm...he has no ability whatsoever to do so. First, he has no right of access to his employees tax records. Second, it's entirely possible that much/all of the unpaid taxes are subject to legitimate disputes.

Third and most importantly, I believe I read in this very thread that the law prohibits firing federal employees (other than IRS employees) for failing to pay their taxes.

So your position basically means that a President can either NEVER take the position Obama is currently taking, or he should violate the law to ensure that none of his employees have any kind of delinquent/disputed tax obligations.

Your insight on this matter makes no sense.

He has an ability to do so. If he knows some of his aides are delinquent he can suggest they get paid up as soon as possible. It may not be something he can force, but it's certainly something he can say he wants them to do. He's the President. If they're his aides I'm sure they want to make him happy.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:06 AM
yes, we know...tell us how we should act and feel.


I don't tell anyone how to act and feel. But when their acts follow a consistent pattern, I won't hesitate to point that out.

Do what you want, but don't bitch when you get called on it.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:10 AM
He has an ability to do so. If he knows some of his aides are delinquent he can suggest they get paid up as soon as possible. It may not be something he can force, but it's certainly something he can say he wants them to do. He's the President. If they're his aides I'm sure they want to make him happy.


We don't even know if (or what amount) of the back taxes owed are in dispute.

And I'm sure, especially if this becomes a brouhaha, that he will put out the word that people need to pay their taxes.

But this is really much ado about nothing. Whether his aides pay or don't pay their allegedly owed taxes has nothing to do with what makes sense for the US in terms of tax policy. There's not even the remotest connection. It's just a silly "gotcha" that will likely resonate with Main Street. In other words, politics at its finest, putting appearances above reality.

stevieray
01-27-2012, 08:14 AM
I don't tell anyone how to act and feel. But when their acts follow a consistent pattern, I won't hesitate to point that out.

point what out?

blaise
01-27-2012, 08:19 AM
We don't even know if (or what amount) of the back taxes owed are in dispute.

And I'm sure, especially if this becomes a brouhaha, that he will put out the word that people need to pay their taxes.

But this is really much ado about nothing. Whether his aides pay or don't pay their allegedly owed taxes has nothing to do with what makes sense for the US in terms of tax policy. There's not even the remotest connection. It's just a silly "gotcha" that will likely resonate with Main Street. In other words, politics at its finest, putting appearances above reality.

I don't know that anyone is saying it should affect US tax policy. I'm not sure it was ever presented as anything more than a "gotcha".
Is the standard for posting threads that it has to be something earth shattering to our political beliefs or something? Pitt Gorilla (or Pittsie, I get confused about which is which) posts throw away threads all the time about Republican foibles. Sometimes they're nothing more than a cartoon or song.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:20 AM
point what out?


Not sure if you're serious, but point out whatever pattern or whatever that I discern. In this case HCF's indiscriminate carpet bombing that Obama = Bad, as Literature said.

HonestChieffan
01-27-2012, 08:21 AM
point what out?

I don't like Obama. Now it's public.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:22 AM
I don't know that anyone is saying it should affect US tax policy. I'm not sure it was ever presented as anything more than a "gotcha".

Maybe. But it's not even a gotcha. Got your aides, who may or may not owe taxes depending on the reasons for their failures to pay amounts that the IRS say is owed. Not much of a gotcha, but the article the OP quotes doesn't exactly present it that way because they're too busy writing it as a gotcha.


Is the standard for posting threads that it has to be something earth shattering to our political beliefs or something? Pitt Gorilla (or Pittsie, I get confused about which is which) posts throw away threads all the time about Republican foibles. Sometimes they're nothing more than a cartoon or song.


There's no standard at all. We all know that.

Nor are there rules about my critiquing the quality/quantity of someone's posts. So HCF will post what he wants, and I will throw peanuts, or not, at his posts, as I wish.

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 08:23 AM
Umm...he has no ability whatsoever to do so. First, he has no right of access to his employees tax records. Second, it's entirely possible that much/all of the unpaid taxes are subject to legitimate disputes.

Third and most importantly, I believe I read in this very thread that the law prohibits firing federal employees (other than IRS employees) for failing to pay their taxes.

So your position basically means that a President can either NEVER take the position Obama is currently taking, or he should violate the law to ensure that none of his employees have any kind of delinquent/disputed tax obligations.

Your insight on this matter makes no sense.Yeah I didn't mean literally check his employee's tax records. I'm talking from a purely political POV.

It seems very elitist to go out on the campaign trail and arbitrarily pick a number out of the air and claim it is someone's 'fair share' when members of your own administration seem to be having difficulty keeping up with what is conisdered their 'fair share' that is written into law.

stevieray
01-27-2012, 08:23 AM
Not sure if you're serious, but point out whatever pattern or whatever that I discern. In this case HCF's indiscriminate carpet bombing that Obama = Bad, as Literature said.

I rest my case.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:47 AM
I rest my case.


Resting your case doesn't mean you win, it just means you're done arguing for your side.

I can see why you'd quit when behind though. :p

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 08:47 AM
Yeah I didn't mean literally check his employee's tax records. I'm talking from a purely political POV.

It seems very elitist to go out on the campaign trail and arbitrarily pick a number out of the air and claim it is someone's 'fair share' when members of your own administration seem to be having difficulty keeping up with what is conisdered their 'fair share' that is written into law.


I suppose. I don't see Obama as having much/any control over his aides payment of taxes, though, especially since there's a law against firing them for failing to pay taxes.

blaise
01-27-2012, 08:51 AM
I suppose. I don't see Obama as having much/any control over his aides payment of taxes, though, especially since there's a law against firing them for failing to pay taxes.

Dude, the guy's the freaking President. You don't think he holds sway over his aides without the threat of firing them?

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 08:56 AM
I suppose. I don't see Obama as having much/any control over his aides payment of taxes, though, especially since there's a law against firing them for failing to pay taxes.He doesn't. He should have control over his own mouth though. If he wants to play class warfare games to get re-elected the left should expect threads like this.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 09:02 AM
He doesn't. He should have control over his own mouth though. If he wants to play class warfare games to get re-elected the left should expect threads like this.


The view of whether he's playing class warfare at all is a matter of perception.

Heck, if his suggested tax hikes don't even target people in the income brackets of the aides who aren't current on their taxes, then the whole thing REALLY becomes completely irrelevant.

If he has specific proposals as to tax increases, I'm not familiar with them, just FTR..

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 09:04 AM
Dude, the guy's the freaking President. You don't think he holds sway over his aides without the threat of firing them?


I'd like to think he has better things to do than babysit, to be honest.

The sheer volume of irrelevant items that may or may not become politicized is impossible to track or manage, to be honest. Any POTUS who becomes such a micromanager isn't doing his job, IMHO.

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 09:06 AM
The view of whether he's playing class warfare at all is a matter of perception.

Heck, if his suggested tax hikes don't even target people in the income brackets of the aides who aren't current on their taxes, then the whole thing REALLY becomes completely irrelevant.

If he has specific proposals as to tax increases, I'm not familiar with them, just FTR..You'd probably know this stuff if your team didn't make the playoffs or was already knocked out.

HonestChieffan
01-27-2012, 09:07 AM
He doesn't. He should have control over his own mouth though. If he wants to play class warfare games to get re-elected the left should expect threads like this.

To his credit it is working. Reasonably smart people are defending the divisive tactics, they defend his administration and see nothing wrong with simple things like filing taxes or choosing not to. Any observation that is negative is to be attacked and no critical comment goes by without a spin.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 09:23 AM
To his credit it is working. Reasonably smart people are defending the divisive tactics, they defend his administration and see nothing wrong with simple things like filing taxes or choosing not to. Any observation that is negative is to be attacked and no critical comment goes by without a spin.


WTF?

http://randula02.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/reading-for-dummies-cartoon1.jpg

blaise
01-27-2012, 09:25 AM
I'd like to think he has better things to do than babysit, to be honest.

The sheer volume of irrelevant items that may or may not become politicized is impossible to track or manage, to be honest. Any POTUS who becomes such a micromanager isn't doing his job, IMHO.

He has people deciding which tie is the best for the camera. I don't think having someone try to clean up negative news stories is really all that much of a micro-manage. I guess I don't see why you would think him telling an assistant, "Put out a memo to my aides telling them, 'If you don't have a good reason for being behind on your taxes, pay them. We don't need negative press in an election year'" would be some major undertaking.
I'm sure he has someone who looks for stories like this every day. I know that Clinton did for a fact. He had people go through a variety of newspapers every day, looking for news stories of note, or negative issues about him, and putting them together for him to look at.
I'm not saying Obama is personally going to examine each aide's taxes, but I'm sure he's hired someone to control negative press.
It's on CBS's website this morning. And it doesn't really matter if it's a legitimate issue. The only thing that matters is that it could influence voters.
To not spend 30 seconds to issue a memo to aides would be foolish in my opinion.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-27-2012, 09:34 AM
When you grow up you will learn to differentiate right from wrong and not filter based on your bias. At this point you have no ability to do so.

ROFL Fucking post of the year.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 10:04 AM
I'm like all grown up and stuff, and I gotta say I agree with him. You are basically a Obama-administration-sucks-and-can-do-nothing-right posting machine. Sometimes the issues are serious and legitimate, and sometimes they are completely absurd bullshit. Quality doesn't seem to be a factor with you in deciding whether to post it, however. If it appears bad for the Obama Administration, no matter how superficial or insignificant (or even misleading), the onto CP it goes.

Just sayin'.

That may be true (and, btw, I don't think it's a bad thing because we need people to post threads), but what I see happening is that some people are regularly dismissing anything HCF posts as if the fact that he posted it automatically makes it a nonissue, which is ridiculous.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 10:10 AM
I suppose. I don't see Obama as having much/any control over his aides payment of taxes, though, especially since there's a law against firing them for failing to pay taxes.

He can fire them for any reason he wants to, including the fact that they're a political embarrassment to him.

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 10:35 AM
He can fire them for any reason he wants to, including the fact that they're a political embarrassment to him.


That would apply, I think, only to the most senior-most advisers, etc. I'm not sure who is included in this 400 or whatever person head-count, but I'm not sure whether they would be protected by the law or not.

That's assuming he is able to get data from the IRS on which specific individuals are delinquent. I'm not sure whether he can even get that (may be laws/rules which prohibit that, I have no idea).

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 10:35 AM
That may be true (and, btw, I don't think it's a bad thing because we need people to post threads), but what I see happening is that some people are regularly dismissing anything HCF posts as if the fact that he posted it automatically makes it a nonissue, which is ridiculous.


I agree that not everythign HCF posts should be ignored/discarded. Some are certainly worthwhile. And certainly if this place had to survive on MY original posts, then it would be a barren wasteland of a forum. :D

Amnorix
01-27-2012, 10:38 AM
He has people deciding which tie is the best for the camera. I don't think having someone try to clean up negative news stories is really all that much of a micro-manage. I guess I don't see why you would think him telling an assistant, "Put out a memo to my aides telling them, 'If you don't have a good reason for being behind on your taxes, pay them. We don't need negative press in an election year'" would be some major undertaking.
I'm sure he has someone who looks for stories like this every day. I know that Clinton did for a fact. He had people go through a variety of newspapers every day, looking for news stories of note, or negative issues about him, and putting them together for him to look at.I'm not saying Obama is personally going to examine each aide's taxes, but I'm sure he's hired someone to control negative press.
It's on CBS's website this morning. And it doesn't really matter if it's a legitimate issue. The only thing that matters is that it could influence voters.
To not spend 30 seconds to issue a memo to aides would be foolish in my opinion.

Think every Administration does this. I remember reading that about one of them, and think you're right it's Clinton.

How do you know Obama hasn't done this already? But it's too late now, right? Though I have no idea if an identical report was issued last year, or whether the media covered it.

Bottom line -- to me at least -- this is a non-issue. I would say the same if he were a Republican (just as I never called Bush to task for too many weekends at the ranch or whatever -- I never care about that phony outrage political BS).

blaise
01-27-2012, 10:48 AM
Think every Administration does this. I remember reading that about one of them, and think you're right it's Clinton.

How do you know Obama hasn't done this already? But it's too late now, right? Though I have no idea if an identical report was issued last year, or whether the media covered it.

Bottom line -- to me at least -- this is a non-issue. I would say the same if he were a Republican (just as I never called Bush to task for too many weekends at the ranch or whatever -- I never care about that phony outrage political BS).

I think he probably has done this already. My point isn't that it's some earth shattering story, just that it's not really crazy that HCF would post it. It's mildly noteworthy, and I would guess Obama addressed it in some fashion, or someone did it for him. I think it gets an additional little ring to it media-wise due to Obama's frequent use of the term, "fair share".
I just know Clinton did that because I know two people that used to go to the White House early in the morning and do it for him. This was right before you could get everything online. They would make a sort of scrapbook for him out of articles. They didn't give it to him directly, though. They were just law students.