# Geithner....Dachle....Unpatriotic!



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." - Joe Biden, September 2008.

Geithner did not just forget. He received money from the IMF to pay his taxes and instead kept it without reporting or paying. 

Daschle failed to report income, and this morning one of his defenders blamed the woman that processes the payroll for the company he worked for, saying that she was on "maternity leave". He took deductions for charitable contributions to organizations that were not legitimate charities and failed to report the use of a car and chauffeur.

Let's add to that Chris Dodd getting a "VIP" interest rate from Countrywide. I guess the rules only apply to those that actually work for a living.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

cd77 said:


> Why do you ****heads insist on vomiting your stupid political views on a fashion forum? Do you really have no one to talk with? Get a life losers!
> 
> Can these dumb asses please be banned from posting?


What? Some think-skinned lefty visits the forum for the first time and demands a poster be banned because he posts an opinion on the Interchange? Now that is funny. For the record, I know and like Tom Daschle, and don't for a moment think he is unpatriotic. But pt4u67's post is totally in line.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

It is truly amazing how these problems keep cropping up with President Obama's nominations. Amazing.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

cd77 said:


> Why do you ****heads insist on vomiting your stupid political views on a fashion forum? Do you really have no one to talk with? Get a life losers!
> 
> Can these dumb asses please be banned from posting?


I didn't know Alec Baldwin was posting here!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

cd77 said:


> Why do you ****heads insist on vomiting your stupid political views on a fashion forum? Do you really have no one to talk with? Get a life losers!
> 
> Can these dumb asses please be banned from posting?


.........and where did this "thing" fall out off? First posting and "it" is already calling people names and asking for some people to be banned? By the time "it" posts 49 more times, "it" would be requesting for the name of the Forum to be changed to AskCd77AboutClothes. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Don't understand why Daschle is still being considered with his tax scandel. 

Obama seems way different than what he lead people to believe. It is why you can't believe a good talker on talking skills alone.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I would like an apology. Somebody with a foul mouth makes one post. That post seems to be deleted and I do not know if the poster has been banned.
I do know a broad paintbrush has slapped 'Leftie' on our paint by number invisible troll before any recognisable political bent ( if any) can be determined.
If this forum is to ever hope for a standard of dialog, we need to set it.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Kav said:


> I would like an apology. Somebody with a foul mouth makes one post. That post seems to be deleted and I do not know if the poster has been banned.
> I do know a broad paintbrush has slapped 'Leftie' on our paint by number invisible troll before any recognisable political bent ( if any) can be determined.
> If this forum is to ever hope for a standard of dialog, we need to set it.


I apologize. It's all my fault.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

That character was gone so fast I didn't even get to see his vitriol. It just ain't fair...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Back to the topic:

Are Geithner and Daschle so uniquely qualified that nobody else can do these jobs? I doubt it. 

Every two years when I renew my license to practise law I have to sign an affidavit that I am not delinquent in my taxes. In my view, these tax problems disqualify them from government employment.

Howard Dean would have been a good choice for HHS, but Rahm Emmanuel hates him.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Jack: I agree completely. It seems a bit like we are asking the foxes to guard the Hen house...and that just has not proven to be a good thing in the past! However, how about showing a little compassion here. Can any of us imagine the 'practical difficulty' in finding a sufficient number of 'honest' politicos, to fill the Cabinet Secretarial posts(!)?? The President's going to have a harder time doing that that finding solutions to our economic woes!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

^I don't hold politicians in very high regard, so I'm never surprised when things like this happen. To rise to the level Daschle and Geithner have in their lives, I would say dishonesty is almost a job requirement.

Are Daschle and Geither arrogant, hypocritical and dishonest? Probably. Are they unpatriotic? No.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Tax code is the problem*

Both of these men have better than average educations, one of them is supposed to be a financial expert, and the other voted for the tax code he apparently didn't understand enough to follow.

I am a CPA, I had to understand enough of the code to pass the exam, and after doing that, those crazies in the western militias don't look so crazy anymore.

Isn't there something about cruel and unusual punishemnt in the Constitution? I believe it is cruel and unusual to punish (penalties and interest) people who make mistakes on their taxes, when the very people who wrote and voted for the tax laws are incapable of filing thier own taxes without mistakes.


----------



## walterb (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't know whether either man is unpatriotic, but it seems a no brainer that blatantly cheating on your taxes should disqualify either man from holding a cabinet level position in an administration that has promised change. Geithner is not only a tax dodger, he is also a tool of Wall Street and particularly Goldman Sachs. No surprise that he appointed a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs to be his chief of staff. And also no surprise that every solution he promotes to the financial mess involves shifting the bad assets from private companies onto the backs of American taxpayers. He was right there as President of the NY Fed when all of the securitization of mortgages and increase of leverage took place. As a regulator he did nothing to stop it, so how does that make him the only person for Treasury Secretary? On fiscal matters, Obama appears to favor a continuation of Bush policies.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I didn't know Alec Baldwin was posting here!


Me Neither.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I thought Alec was pushing carts at Pathmark.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The title of my post was more of a thought exercise. Perhaps given that the quote came from Joe Biden, I suppose a "lack of thought" exercise would be more appropo. Of course I don't think the two men are unpatriotic. But it is interesting how from a party that sees paying taxes as virtuous, particularly on the part of those who can pay more, these two have gone somewhat out of their way to play fast and loose with the system. 

I don't know about Geithner's political convictions, but Daschle is a true blue liberal. There is something a bit scummy about people who carve a tortured path through the tax system, basically committing fraud who then have no problem with jamming those who actually risk capital when the risk reaps rewards.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I thought Alec was pushing carts at Pathmark.


Alec and Barbara Streisand never made good on their promise to leave the U.S. if GWB was elected POTUS.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

I believe the _National Review_ found a speech from a few years back where Daschle was castigating tax cheats; didn't catch it all, just a snippet in passing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am going to start compiling one of those woo woo lists of similarities between presidents like the famous Lincoln Kennedy. Do join me over the next ? years of the Obama presidency.

#1 In the first year of GWBs first term, an american reconnaissance plane collided with a communist chinese fighter over international waters. After expressings regrets the undertrained throttle jocky died we were forced to dissassemble the aircraft vs a simple flyout. In retaliation we actually cancelled chicom made berets for our armed forces. 
In the first year of Obama's presidency, a commercial Airbus suffered a bird strike from our supposed allies the canadians. The pilot, who under old regulations would have been in forced retirement, demonstrated why older workers are still superior to younger, poorer paid replacements.

#2 Both GWB and Obama have two daughters. They also have wives. Both oppose gay marriage but support legal partnership.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

The point is now officially moot for Daschle...he just asked Obama that his nomination be withdrawn.


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

The thing is, cheating on your taxes does not disqualify you from being Health and Human Services Secretary. The same way cheating on your wife does not mean you shouldn't be POTUS; taxes are completely irrelevant to HHS.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You beat me to it.

I think this is good news. I always kind of liked Daschle, although I always wished he had more fight in him.

Since the obvious choice is disqualified by virtue of personal animus between him and Rahm Emmanuel, I wonder who will get the job now.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Since the obvious choice is disqualified by virtue of personal animus between him and Rahm Emmanuel, I wonder who will get the job now.


Who DOESN'T have "personal animus" with Rahm Emmanuel?

What about a moderate like William Weld? An oddball choice, I know, but odder things have happened.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thomas Hart said:


> The thing is, cheating on your taxes does not disqualify you from being Health and Human Services Secretary. The same way cheating on your wife does not mean you shouldn't be POTUS; taxes are completely irrelevant to HHS.


I disagree.

I think being a tax cheat and reluctantly paying what one owes only after being nominated for a government job should automatically disqualify one from consideration for a government job.

In Daschle's particular case, I think he should never have been nominated any way due to his recent job giving big-money speeches to various health care industry organizations.


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

Rahm Emanuel is a terrible choice, I hate him. Did you fellows read his father's quote? "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." And now Israel is going to get so much more funding to carry out terrorist acts.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Thomas Hart said:


> The thing is, cheating on your taxes does not disqualify you from being Health and Human Services Secretary. The same way cheating on your wife does not mean you shouldn't be POTUS; *taxes are completely irrelevant to HHS.*


So is committing armed robbery. Put it this way: If someone is willing to cheat on his taxes, what else would he be willing to cheat on?


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> So is committing armed robbery. Put it this way: If someone is willing to cheat on his taxes, what else would he be willing to cheat on?


That's what they said with Clinton. However, I have a feeling that while he may cheat on taxes, something which pertains to him, I don't think he would be willing to screw the American people.


----------



## walterb (Dec 24, 2006)

Thomas Hart said:


> That's what they said with Clinton. However, I have a feeling that while he may cheat on taxes, something which pertains to him, I don't think he would be willing to screw the American people.


Don't you think cheating on your taxes is screwing the American people? I do.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thomas Hart said:


> That's what they said with Clinton. However, I have a feeling that while he may cheat on taxes, something which pertains to him, I don't think he would be willing to screw the American people.


Isn't try to skip on paying $140,000 in taxes kind of screwing the American people?

Especially when his (Daschle's) political party says rich people - like Daschle - already weren't/aren't paying their fair share when they did actually pay what the tax codes said they owed?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I thought, from news reports, what Geithner did was much more "intentionally evasive" than what Daschle did. If Daschle is unfit to be in the Cabinet then so is Geithner.

Let's see: Richardson, Clinton, Holder, Geithner, Daschle, & Killefer; who would think Clinton would be the cleanest appointment in that group?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I thought, from news reports, what Geithner did was much more "intentionally evasive" than what Daschle did. If Daschle is unfit to be in the Cabinet then so is Geithner.
> 
> Let's see: Richardson, Clinton, Holder, Geithner, Daschle, & Killefer; who would think Clinton would be the cleanest appointment in that group?


Daschle had three or four different issues with his taxes, whereas Geithner _only_ had the one, I think.

Or maybe, Obama just decided that one tax cheat in his cabinet was enough.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I thought, from news reports, what Geithner did was much more "intentionally evasive" than what Daschle did. If Daschle is unfit to be in the Cabinet then so is Geithner.


Daschle and Geithner are both unfit to serve in reality. I agree with you to an extent, that what Geithner did was more obviously evasive. But I believe Daschle did know that he was cheating on his taxes. If you read some of his comments about why exactly he suddenly thought that his driver might have been a tax problem this year, and not say, when he was audited in 2006, everything is illuminated.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

boatshoe said:


> Daschle and Geithner are both unfit to serve in reality. I agree with you to an extent, that what Geithner did was more obviously evasive. But I believe Daschle did know that he was cheating on his taxes. If you read some of his comments about why exactly he suddenly thought that his driver might have been a tax problem this year, and not say, when he was audited in 2006, everything is illuminated.


They are not serving in reality. They are serving in Washington. Actually, Daschle is not serving, after all. Which in my view is a good thing.

I am heartened that the nomination was withdrawn. I thought the president's comments about the matter were appropriate.

Cheers,
Gurdon


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Gurdon said:


> They are not serving in reality. They are serving in Washington. Actually, Daschle is not serving, after all. Which in my view is a good thing.
> 
> I am heartened that the nomination was withdrawn. I thought the president's comments about the matter were appropriate.
> 
> ...


Daschle may not be serving, but he is receiving one of the most generous pension packages on the planet in addition to the money/driver/perks he receives from private sector interests he lobbies for.

I for one dont find lobbyists or lobbying all bad. They represent the interests of a taxpayer or group of taxpayers after all. The problem is the system. McCain/feingold and other reform attempts posits that we must stop these corporations/special interests/rich people from buying influence by plying and corrupting our elected representatives with filthy lucre.

I look at it another way: We must take away from our elected representative the product they are selling. Were the goverment not intervening and taxing in so many ways, there would be little in the way of tax breaks/influence/earmarks etc to buy/sell. The main reason our founding fathers envisioned a limited Federal government.

That said, this bunch Obama has come up with are not much different than the Clinton Admin. Even some of the same people. Obama, Biden, Daschle, Geithner, HRC, they are all self stysled elites who see themselves as a better and more entitled than you and I. Epitomized by a "do as I say not as I do" attitude.This is a problem that is widespread among the career political classes, and is particulary acute in the Senate, and more so among the Democrats serving there. Republicans, congressonial Democrats etc are not immune, its just most acute among Senate dems. Republicans are far from perfect, but they seem to retain at least some notion that they work for us, not the other way around. Probably because some may have actually spent time in the private sector.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As a retired "Simple Servant", I am a bit frustrated by the reality that the institutional expectations of Cabinet level nominees seems less than that of (even) mid to lower level civil servants. I was literally told how to dress, while working; during the last eight to ten years of service, I was required to periodically 'pee in a bottle', and tested to insure I wasn't ingesting any bad sh*t while carrying out the peoples business; every five years, I was subjected to an update of my background investigation to maintain a security clearance; and subjected to additional tax audits...to insure I was paying ALL my taxes! Yet President Obama doesn't even expect these Bozos, he's nominating for some of the highest stations in our government service, to simply pay their taxes. I resent that and am quickly becoming disillusioned with our new President's promises of (positive!) change in government!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> As a retired "Simple Servant", I am a bit frustrated by the reality that the institutional expectations of Cabinet level nominees seems less than that of (even) mid to lower level civil servants. I was literally told how to dress, while working; during the last eight to ten years of service, I was required to periodically 'pee in a bottle', and tested to insure I wasn't ingesting any bad sh*t while carrying out the peoples business; every five years, I was subjected to an update of my background investigation to maintain a security clearance; and subjected to additional tax audits...to insure I was paying ALL my taxes! Yet President Obama doesn't even expect these Bozos, he's nominating for some of the highest stations in our government service, to simply pay their taxes. I resent that and am quickly becoming disillusioned with our new President's promises of (positive!) change in government!


To give the president his due, he has stated that he "screwed up," and will see that it doesn't happen again. I think he has learned that it is necessary to actually verify that prospective appointees actually meet standards.

As another retired civil servant, I also resent the double standard between us and elected officials. BTW, I had a major role in a successful effort where I worked to limit drug testing to public safety and heavy equipment workers, limiting such intrusions to the kinds of work where there was an arguable connection with the need for abstinence. The argument prevailed that private behavior on one's own time was otherwise not the business of an employer. I also helped craft the procedures for dealing with substance abuse on the job.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

And after all the questions about the vetting process of Governor Palin; that's a pretty big screw up for the guy that is going to save the rest of us.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

The question for Obama should have been, "Exactly where or how did you screw up, Mr President?"

I would like to know just what part he thinks he screwed up on.

Does he have lousy vetters?

Did he screw up with the very idea of nominating Daschle?

Did he screw up by backing him so strongly even after the extent of Daschle's "issues" were known to the public?

What did he screw up? I guess that would be too hard a question.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Isn't try to skip on paying $140,000 in taxes kind of screwing the American people?
> 
> Especially when his (Daschle's) political party says rich people - like Daschle - already weren't/aren't paying their fair share when they did actually pay what the tax codes said they owed?


Best post of the thread!

Democrats tend to be duplicitous. The Dems want to nationalize everything, get us all on the govt. payroll, and destroy everything that has made the USA the greatest country in history.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Beau said:


> Democrats tend to be duplicitous. The Dems want to nationalize everything, get us all on the govt. payroll, and destroy everything that has made the USA the greatest country in history.


Excellent post, except that everything in it is false.

Or maybe you can prove your assertions.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Beau said:


> Best post of the thread!
> 
> Democrats tend to be duplicitous. The Dems want to nationalize everything, get us all on the govt. payroll, and destroy everything that has made the USA the greatest country in history.


What's more, I hear they have a history of discriminating against bearded attorneys in Vermont!


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Excellent post, except that everything in it is false.
> 
> Or maybe you can prove your assertions.


Obama proposes that a CEO who takes TARP money has to have his salary capped at $500,000. Now that is what I call over-regulation. The regulation of pay will drive greater talent to those companies who are not hampered by such a restriction. Without competent leadership, companies that took the TARP money will have to compete staffed by a lesser talent pool.

I don't know what you do for a living, but how would you like the government to decide that you make too much, so now your income is limited to X. I don't want that for me or anyone else. That smacks of Socialism or worse, Communism.

TARP itself removes the ability of the free market to correct itself. Now everyone is on the hook to pay this bill. Big government is not the answer.

Businesses succeed and fail every day. Investments rise and fall on market conditions. Losses are tough, but when one business fails others succeed. We don't live in a utopia. Bad things happen. Those who made bad business decisions must suffer the consequences.

The Republican proposal, which will reduce taxes on the first two tax brackets, is a great program. It lowers taxes for everyone.

Democrats will propose another round of tax refunds of $1000 to working families. They will give $1000 to include some people who never even pay that into the system. That type of program creates a paid constituency -- those who recieve something for nothing.

I don't want the government to give me $1000. It was mine in the first place. If the government lets me keep more of my own money, I am much more inclined to spend it, thus helping the economy.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Beau said:


> Best post of the thread!
> 
> Democrats tend to be duplicitous. The Dems want to nationalize everything, get us all on the govt. payroll, and destroy everything that has made the USA the greatest country in history.


You mean an allowance?

Iffy medical, grain, hay and alfalfa, shuttled from corral to corral- not to mention getting milked, and when no longer usefull...part of you might make it to green acreas. Something like 30 years of my opinion of the Democrat party.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Relayer said:


> The question for Obama should have been, "Exactly where or how did you screw up, Mr President?"
> 
> I would like to know just what part he thinks he screwed up on.
> 
> ...


Not meaning to come off as a smart a** but, a proper answer to your question would be...all of the above! Paraphrasing the announcer on the old TV series, The Shadow, "Who knows what evil lurks in the mind of an elected official?" Well the Shadow would have known but, I think he's passed on!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Beau said:


> Obama proposes that a CEO who takes TARP money has to have his salary capped at $500,000. Now that is what I call over-regulation. The regulation of pay will drive greater talent to those companies who are not hampered by such a restriction. Without competent leadership, companies that took the TARP money will have to compete staffed by a lesser talent pool.
> 
> ...


Given the woeful status of our Nation's financial community, where are you seeing all this "greater talent"? It would seem to me that a good number of those you might consider including in your "greater talent" pool, should be going to jail, rather than getting mega-salaries and million dollar bonuses! Let's not kid ourselves, many of these financial stars haven't proven to be all that bright...except when it came to fleecing their investors.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What's more, I hear they have a history of discriminating against bearded attorneys in Vermont!


Are you kidding? Some days in court you'd think you can't get a bar license _without_ a beard.

Thanks, Forsberg!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Sure thing, Jack!

I was hoping a bit of humor might ease the pressure of representing AAAC sartorially in the Vermont Legal System.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It was a welcome reminder that it's not necessary to rise to the bait every time it's offered.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Given the woeful status of our Nation's financial community, where are you seeing all this "greater talent"? It would seem to me that a good number of those you might consider including in your "greater talent" pool, should be going to jail, rather than getting mega-salaries and million dollar bonuses! Let's not kid ourselves, many of these financial stars haven't proven to be all that bright...except when it came to fleecing their investors.


They were doing what Congress/Senate/FNMA were encoragig them to do. Where is the congressional compensation reform?


----------

