- This topic has 99 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Obama’s pick for Treasury Secretary didn’t pay taxes from 2001-2004 and was employing an illegal immigrant housekeeper.
Democrats quickly defended him by claiming not paying taxes was “an honest mistake”.
Is this change?
…he payed taxes he missed something within those taxes that normal people miss all the time as well. So it was an honest mistake.
YouWinGameOver said:
…he payed taxes he missed something within those taxes that normal people miss all the time as well. So it was an honest mistake.I have yet to meet a coworker who didn’t pay social security and medicare. That’s NOT a common mistake. That’s ducking a tax because you don’t work for an American company who directly reports it. Every tax prep program asks for it and I imagine a CPA would lose a license for ignoring it.
Also, Obama now wants to go back and add aditional restrictions and sanctions on the bailout money that has ALREADY been given out. Last I checked a contract can’t be changed by only one of the parties involved.
actually it is. People make mistakes on taxes all the time. I love how people like to pick at little things democrats do, like miss a tax here or there, or getting a little head on the job. BUT when the other side drags the whole country into a war based on a lie, cough weapons of mass destruction cough, its A OKAY. Oh or how bout when the president lands on an aircraft carrier with a poster that says MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, leading everyone to believe that the war was over, when it actually meant it just got started. Or how bout the fact that the former people in charge of our economy COUGH REPUBLICANS COUGH were also the people responsible for the fall of the economy. But lets just forget about that, and worry about who obama picks as treasury, because its the little things that count. Give me a F’ing break.
And he can go back and set restrictions or change things on the agreement. Why?
BECAUSE HES THE PRESIDENT! So deal with it for four years.
And the proper politically correct way to say what his housekeeper is, is undocumented immigrant. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If there was, some of our forefathers would be considered illegal, where are their papers?
Also, if you haven’t noticed, the defecation hit the fan in 2001, when we stunned the world by voting in bush. We have been a big overflowing bowl of crap for the past 8 years. *edited* right it’s change.
.cb new_rayz said:
actually it is. People make mistakes on taxes all the time.Do you actually pay taxes? There are pretty much four taxes you pay and he didn’t pay two of them. Anyone who has ever paid attention to their taxes knows when something is missing, such as when you suddenly get alot more money than you’re supposed to.
.cb new_rayz said:
BUT when the other side drags the whole country into a war based on a lie, cough weapons of mass destruction cough, its A OKAY.They found enough nuclear material to make several bombs. The raw material is the hardest part to get and is why Iran has had so much trouble finishing their bomb. Does that not count?
.cb new_rayz said:
Oh or how bout when the president lands on an aircraft carrier with a poster that says MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, leading everyone to believe that the war was over, when it actually meant it just got started.The mission to destroy Iraq’s military and overthrow it’s government was over. The Iranian backed militants and soldiers that we’ve been dealing with since then weren’t part of the original mission. By your definition WW2 still isn’t over.
.cb new_rayz said:
Or how bout the fact that the former people in charge of our economy COUGH REPUBLICANS COUGH were also the people responsible for the fall of the economy.I hate to break it to you, but Clinton and a democrat congress signed into law our current problems. They created regulations which forced banks to give out subprime loans, those who didn’t comply had restrictions put on their ability to borrow from the federal government by having their credit reduced and loan ratios reduced. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also being run by democrats when they made the bulk of their subprime, adjustable rate mortages and it was democrats who increased their loan ratios to nearly 20:1, that is they loaned out 20 times more money than they had.
.cb new_rayz said:
And he can go back and set restrictions or change things on the agreement. Why?BECAUSE HES THE PRESIDENT! So deal with it for four years.
If Bush was doubling back on previous deals would you be *edited*ing about it? Yeah. But I guess it would be just one more “illegal” thing Bush “did” in office.
.cb new_rayz said:
And the proper politically correct way to say what his housekeeper is, is undocumented immigrant. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If there was, some of our forefathers would be considered illegal, where are their papers?We call them illegal immigrants because it’s against the law for them to be in this country. Most of our forefathers came here legally, were quarantined for diseases, and sent home if they didn’t have work. There is no comparison between then and now. Unless of course you’re talking about immigration before this country was founded, then I guess you win by default as nothing can contest such a stupid argument.
This mess was made possible by the Gramm act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)), which McCain supported. The Gramm act deregulated the banking industry, essentially removing the net that would have stopped it from falling.
Gramm was McCain’s economic advisor. A Republican’t. Go Figure!
And as far as I can recall, the percent chance Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction was something like 5 percent. 5 percent? we go to war for that small of a figure? So he didn’t lie about it, but didn’t come perfectly clean either.
But, I guess to be fair, we can blame both sides for this garbage. I can’t break down arguments that fast and off the top of my head, so I will have to get back to you for my response to the rest of your rebuttal. tootles
i think we should jsut either a) get rid of the IRS or
rebuild the IRS or c) nominate me for Supreme Councilman of WCUall three are win
MasterP said:
We call them illegal immigrants because it’s against the law for them to be in this country. Most of our forefathers came here legally, were quarantined for diseases, and sent home if they didn’t have work. There is no comparison between then and now. Unless of course you’re talking about immigration before this country was founded, then I guess you win by default as nothing can contest such a stupid argument.Not that it has anything to do with the argument, it’s just a shout out to any undocumented workers out there. Found this on LULAC’s website. Not sure how accurate it is, but it’s something to think about.
Undocumented Immigrants Effect on Social Security
*Undocumented immigrants compose about three percent of the total US population. (Josiah Heyman of the University of Texas at El Paso)
* The estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the Social Security system with a subsidy of about $7 billion a year. (The New York Times)
* Immigrants contribute billions of dollars annually but receive no public pension in retirement, are not eligible for Medicare, and are not entitled to any other benefits. (Social Security Administration)
*Most undocumented workers pay taxes, and they pay a variety of taxes. (The New York Times)
* The money that undocumented immigrants paid in 2004 added up to about 10 percent of that year’s surplus – the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it pays in pension benefits. (Social Security Administration)
*The money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration’s projections. (Social Security Administration)
*After the 1986 passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, the Social Security Administration began receiving mountains of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect or fake Social Security numbers, and placed them in the “earnings suspense file.” Since then, the file has grown, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes. (Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago)
* Many older workers return home to Latin America when they reach retirement age. (BusinessWeek)
It’s much longer, so if you want to check out the rest here is the link:
.cb new_rayz said:
This mess was made possible by the Gramm act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)), which McCain supported. The Gramm act deregulated the banking industry, essentially removing the net that would have stopped it from falling.Gramm was McCain’s economic advisor. A Republican’t. Go Figure!
And as far as I can recall, the percent chance Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction was something like 5 percent. 5 percent? we go to war for that small of a figure? So he didn’t lie about it, but didn’t come perfectly clean either.
But, I guess to be fair, we can blame both sides for this garbage. I can’t break down arguments that fast and off the top of my head, so I will have to get back to you for my response to the rest of your rebuttal. tootles
Well this whole thing really started under Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which forced banks to make loans to “low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.” When Clinton got in office one of his goals was to rewrite the rules and regulations regarding FMea/Fmac to force them to aggressively loan in the subprime market. The following best describes it
Quote:
Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton bluntly told the group that “more Americans should own their own homes.” He meant it.
Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.
Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin’s Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.
The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, “made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder.” Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of “diversity” in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.
Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.
“Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance,” wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
This all took place before the HUD bill you brought up.
And btw, McCain isn’t Republican in very many ways at all. Had he been he would have won as a good number of people were turned off to his policies and alliances. Most of the independents that helped him get the party nomination didn’t vote for him in the election.
I don’t know where you’re coming up with 5% but I know the NIE report at the time gave high probabilities that he either had large stockpiles or never destroyed previously discovered stockpiles. This was confirmed by several other governments. As Bush still depends on this assessment and Obama will also be depending on this assessment I would be hesitant to really do a whole lot of bashing as the “horribly inaccurate, lying, and evidence fabricating” intellience agencies Bush used will also be used by Obama when making military decisions. And Obama can’t replace the analysts.
potion#9 said:
ITT: Kip got bored, and needed something to flame about
Basically.
By the way, listening to LULAC is like using a Muslim special interest group as a source. Biased much? Besides, most of what the NYT publishes is hogwash anway. Since most illegal immigrants get paid under the table in cash I find it hard to believe that “most undocumented immigrants pay taxes” although if an illegal immigrant can prove they paid social security with your number they can later withdraw earnings from your account. It doesn’t really matter though whether or not they can use the medicare as most hospitals are required, by law, to give care to a patient even if they know the patient can’t afford the healthcare or is “undocumented”. In a way, free visits to the hospital is a better deal than medicare. Much less paperwork, so I hear.
They cannot, however, get you your power chair or scooter at little or no cost to you as Medicare will deny your claim.
MasterP said:
And btw, McCain isn’t Republican in very many ways at all. Had he been he would have won as a good number of people were turned off to his policies and alliances. Most of the independents that helped him get the party nomination didn’t vote for him in the election.I don’t know where you’re coming up with 5% but I know the NIE report at the time gave high probabilities that he either had large stockpiles or never destroyed previously discovered stockpiles. This was confirmed by several other governments. As Bush still depends on this assessment and Obama will also be depending on this assessment I would be hesitant to really do a whole lot of bashing as the “horribly inaccurate, lying, and evidence fabricating” intellience agencies Bush used will also be used by Obama when making military decisions. And Obama can’t replace the analysts.
well I was referring to the G-man when i said Republican. As in his Adviser Gramm.
And as far as bush is concerned, what about that letter he fabricated? The one from the CIA?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Suskind_Bush…nking_0805.html
The point about the undocumented workers is that they are simply that. Undocumented workers. Not criminals like some people make them out to be. There are no doubt a few bad apples, but the majority of them just want to work for their families. And they work harder and longer for little to no pay. They do jobs that NO ONE else would want to do. Have you ever seen or talked to an undocumented worker? I can say I have. They are people too is all I am saying, people that bring much more benefit than detriment to our society. All those republican business owners would be much less wealthy without them, because I bet you a million bucks they have hired undocumented peeps before. Everyone has.
NoDice said:
no wai,, thats my jobLies! i will thief from you
btw… i need yo helps fridays
will you be around or on teh hunt for jobs?Bitey said:
I suggest using non-partisan websites to get the most unbiased facts.but unbiased facts are boring and no fun
More than anything, I am concerned with Obama’s choice of Leon Panettan as CIA Director. I hear he wants to remove all of Bush’s interogation policies and replace them with tickle fights.
(Don’t get me wrong, tickle fights can be a lot of fun, but they don’t work well for information gathering purposes.)
Ephraim said:
More than anything, I am concerned with Obama’s choice of Leon Panettan as CIA Director. I hear he wants to remove all of Bush’s interogation policies and replace them with tickle fights.(Don’t get me wrong, tickle fights can be a lot of fun, but they don’t work well for information gathering purposes.)
ACTUALLY:
Evidence of tickle torture
There are a small number of documented instances of tickle torture. They happened in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and in these instances restrained victims were tickled upon the bare soles of their feet, apparently against their will and for the pleasure of their tormentors. In one instance the victim, a spouse that the torturer had found troublesome, became insane and was subsequently confined.[citation needed]
There is currently no evidence that tickle torture was ever widespread or was practiced by governments. The very small amount of related documentation discovered thus far is all from England and America.
First, ‘Orrible Murder: An Anthology of Victorian Crime and Passion Compiled from the Illustrated Police News (by Leonard De Vries, published by Book Club Associates in London in 1974) (pp 73-4) reissued a news item first published in the Illustrated Police News on December 11, 1869: ‘A Wife Driven Insane by Husband Tickling Her Feet.’ The account states that Michael Puckridge had previously threatened the life of his wife, described as “an interesting looking young woman.” Puckridge tricked his wife into allowing herself to be tied to a plank. Afterward, “Puckridge deliberately and persistently tickled the soles of her feet with a feather. For a long time he continued to operate upon his unhappy victim who was rendered frantic by the process. Eventually, she swooned, whereupon her husband released her. It soon became too manifest that the light of reason had fled. Mrs. Puckridge was taken to the workhouse where she was placed with the other insane inmates.” (page 74) The husband was given away by Mrs. Puckridge’s niece who was aware of the torture and spoke to neighbors about it. The article does not say if Puckridge confessed his crime to the niece after the deed was done, or if the niece actually watched the feather relentlessly scraping away at her aunt’s soles, and ultimately, her sanity.
Second, a Sunday, September 6, 1903, special to the New York Times included a small item on its first page (page 1, no byline), “Treated Patient Brutally.” At the Hudson River State Hospital, one suicidal patient, John Hayes, was immobilized on a bed for his own safety. While he lay helpless, the patient’s woes were multiplied by one of the hospital attendants, Frank A Sanders. “Sanders is said to have confessed that while intoxicated he amused himself by tickling the feet and ribs of Hayes and pulling his nose.” (page 1) Sander’s also gave his restrained victim a black eye. Another hospital employee came upon Sanders while he was entertaining himself at his patient’s expense, and the criminal was brought before a grand jury.
The third instance of documentation is found in David Ker’s New York Times article, “England in Old Times” (page 11 of New York Times, November 13, 1887), where Ker writes, “Gone, too, are the parish stocks, in which offenders against public morality formerly sat imprisoned, with their legs held fast beneath a heavy wooden yoke, while sundry small but fiendish boys improved the occasion by deliberately pulling off their shoes and tickling the soles of their defenseless feet.”
Tickle Torture works!!
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickle_tortur…_tickle_torture
another no no in terms of credible sources but time is worth more than credibility
We need to have have some short plans but work on longevity. Throughout the history of the united states there has not been enough focus on longterm
YouWinGameOver said:
We need to have have some short plans but work on longevity. Throughout the history of the united states there has not been enough focus on longtermagreed
YouWinGameOver said:
We need to have have some short plans but work on longevity. Throughout the history of the united states there has not been enough focus on longtermWhy bother when you can set the entire mess in your successor’s lap. Depending on your party affiliation, the media will be more than happy to give you a pass and play along in the blame game.
And yes Ephraim you have every right to be worried about Obama’s CIA pick as he has absolutely no experience in the intelligence business. This Newsweek quote should scare anyone with a brain:
Quote:
Not all Democrats on the intelligence panel expressed reservations about Panetta. Sen. Ron Wyden, a senior committee member from Oregon, said Panetta is “a smart, savvy D.C. veteran and a strong choice to lead the CIA.” Wyden said he planned to work with Panetta “to declassify much of the story of what went wrong at the CIA these last eight years, so that we can both take steps to make Americans safer and protect the values that define us as Americans.”So democrats think he’s a good pick because he’s a DC veteran and is smart. Would it have been better to pick someone already at the agency who has a good handle on what’s going on. This is a pivotal point in how our future will play out and we simply cannot afford to budget cut and screw around with intelligence gathering like Clinton did.
What I predict is that “to declassify much of the story of what went wrong at the CIA these last eight years, so that we can both take steps to make Americans safer and protect the values that define us as Americans.” means they intend to bring to light every mistake the CIA has made over JUST the last 8 years and then warp these mistakes around until they can pin them on Bush. This is not what we need and is something I can’t remember ever having been done in the past.
Btw, new_rayz I’ll get back to your other post in a few.
MasterP said:
And yes Ephraim you have every right to be worried about Obama’s CIA pick as he has absolutely no experience in the intelligence business.I have heard that Obama and Panetta want to get rid of coerced interogation, waterboarding, Gitmo, and wiretapping, then impose the Army Field Manual on the CIA. This means the CIA will not be able to interogate captured terrorist suspects in any manner other rhan asking politely.
That is what has me a bit peeved.
Ephraim said:
I have heard that Obama and Panetta want to get rid of coerced interogation, waterboarding, Gitmo, and wiretapping, then impose the Army Field Manual on the CIA.They want to get rid of all of the above but from what I’ve heard Obama is having second thoughts on gitmo. Apparently there really are bad people there.
What I don’t understand is why we are so worried about how we treat prisoners. Terrorists are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention as it only protects soldiers fighting under a defined and recognized nation’s flag. And we sure as hell know they don’t get information from prisoners by tickling and asking nicely.
MasterP said:
Btw, new_rayz I’ll get back to your other post in a few.You mean the tickle torture one? lol
MasterP said:
Why bother when you can set the entire mess in your successor’s lap. Depending on your party affiliation, the media will be more than happy to give you a pass and play along in the blame game.And yes Ephraim you have every right to be worried about Obama’s CIA pick as he has absolutely no experience in the intelligence business. This Newsweek quote should scare anyone with a brain:
So democrats think he’s a good pick because he’s a DC veteran and is smart. Would it have been better to pick someone already at the agency who has a good handle on what’s going on. This is a pivotal point in how our future will play out and we simply cannot afford to budget cut and screw around with intelligence gathering like Clinton did.
With Clinton’s “screwing around” he was able to bring to senate and other defenses osama bin laden and people shrugged it off basically as a joke saying that he was diverting the press to something that wasn’t there. Well guess what? He was there and clearly showed his power in 2001 when he hired 11 Saudis and 6(7?) others to hijack planes.
- The forum ‘Political Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.