Nothing says “I’ll be a great Treasury Secretary” like not paying your taxes and hiring illegal aliens



And this... the man our new President Elect is submitting for confirmation... How much you want to bet he'll be confirmed outright. Hmmm.. I wonder what they'd say if I made that "terrible mistake"?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

---

Don't really care about the housekeeper, but the not paying the taxes was dumb for sure. Dumb is the word, because it does appear to be an honest mistake:

Fox Business


And again, I'm not bothered by the house keepr thing, but I'm sure there are some who will raise a stink.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Does anyone really believe that these people, in fact politicians and their privileged buddies as a whole, are ever held to the same ethical or moral standards as the rest of us? The laws of the land by which we have to abide are another matter entirely. Those who make and pass the laws expect us all the bow down and follow them but they get exemptions and get to make ridiculous excuses when found out, whereas we'd be fined or even jailed.

This is true the world over and seems to involve nearly everyone from all political backgrounds. It's not the power that corrupts but that the power attracts those who are already ethically and morally corrupt, and gives them the opportunity to get away with even more.

reply to post by Britguy

---

I do wonder what the difference is between what he did and Wesley Snipes. Is it intent?

Man talk about blowing things out of proportion. These people are Democrats nominated by a Democrat. Anything they did wrong was just an honest mistake. Nominees in the past did not get confirmed because of less....but that doesn't matter because they happened to be Republicans.

the same thing happened to paul o'neil in 2001, when he became bush's secretary of treasury, he also had to pay back taxes, but i guess that was ok.

reply to post by RRconservative

---

Yeah that's true... they waited to have most of their scandals after they got into office. Much better.

I wanted to check in to see the reaction to this thread and have not been surprised.

I expected to see the apologists show up and say things like it's really no big deal and that everyone else did it, etc. - ad nauseum. And pretty much, that's what I've seen here. Interesting, though, how these same types of issues for a Republican nominee would practically have generated frenzied posts against the person in question and even calls for Bush to be impeached for even nominating them.

Level playing field. Deny Hypocrisy.

Bottom line is that this nominee has made enough mistakes to demonstrate not being worthy of this high position. Surely, there has to be be at least one other person in this country that at this point in their lives knows you have to pay taxes and hire documented workers.

Hopefully, Obama can use this to demonstrate some of the "change" he has promised - as in he won't dogmatically defend someone that doesn't deserve defending.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by jimmyx

---

So since another person from the other party did it...it's ok..let's call it even? I'm sick of the people blinded by their political party nonsense.

Once everyone starts seeing things for how they really are instead of playing the blame game and the "Oh well they did it so we should get away with it too" crap...we will all be better off.

A fraud is a fraud...a cheat is a cheat..a tax evader is a tax evader...being a democrat or a republican doesn't make them any less of either of those.

The parties commit the same crimes...yet people pick a side to stick up for? Come on.

reply to post by David9176

---

I don't know, I really think there isn't much to this. He had nothing to gain by not filing his taxes - it's not like he was hiding assets or income. Eventually, he was going to have to pay them, and he did.

If you are looking for motive... I'm not seeing one.

A crime is a crime - whether you see a motive or not.

Think this through to a logical conclusion. Do we have to know why someone robs a store, or is the fact that a crime was committed enough to prosecute, or in this case disqualify?

reply to post by centurion1211

---

Those aren't even relevant examples. Yes, you might think it a case of mistaken identity if a rich guy robbed a 7/11 for 20 bucks. At that point, motive might become relative.

However, intent can be huge in law, so I am not sure where you get the "a crime is a crime". I am not sure if he committed a crime or not, per se. If so, he should obviously be prosecuted like anyone else, but I haven't read anything about that.

As far as Fox News told it, and you can be sure they would hang him if they could, the IRS pointed it out to him, he paid the debt, and everyone called it even.

Can you think of why he would have done it? He literally had nothing to gain...

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Let me re-phrase this in English...

as soon as he got busted.



If I get caught driving 75 mph in a 50 mph zone, and tell the judge I didn't know what the speed limit was, he'd tell me that ignorance is no excuse...and to pay up.

When you get caught not paying taxes, they don't usually throw you in jail. They make you pay the back taxes and add a fine to it, which he was forced to do.

Somehow, I get the feeling he wouldn't have discovered this "forgetful mistake" on his own and corrected it. When you own a business, like I do, it's still your responsibility to make sure the accounting is done correctly, whether you pay someone to do it or not.

The main issue isn't so much that he failed to pay his taxes and hired an illegal alien. The fact that he can become Secretary of the Treasury afterwards is.

Hey, maybe we'll get lucky and he'll forgetfully lose a couple trillion dollars of debt.

Funny thing, being human, we make mistakes and learn from them.
The good news is, as long as he does the job he's hired to do, our country will continue to spiral into a state of economic disrepair.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by lernmore]

reply to post by lernmore

---

That's all fine and well. I am not arguing that it was a major mistake on his part to not pay his taxes and I'm not sure why you think I am. What I am arguing is against the Rush Limbaugh argument that he got a tax vacation and he did it on purpose. It makes no sense.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Irish M1ck]

I'm sorry, it is very hard for me to conclude this was an oversight. I would never, ever, ever think of not paying my taxes. How did he manage to not think about paying these taxes??? If he is smart enough to be Treasury Secretary then you would think he would of got this right. I just don't understand. When April 15 rolls around we sign and mail our forms/taxes and put alot of thought and effort into the process. Something smells fishy here. Now he gets to be responsible for the IRS. Go figure.




[edit on 1/15/2009 by sad_eyed_lady]

I find it hard to believe it was a mistake and so what if it was! Either change the law or send him to jail like the rest of us.

www.starblogs.net...

He got the treatment just like Wesly Snipes. IRS tries to tell you, "See it doesn't matter if you're famous." but if you're a politician its a different story?

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

---

The crazy thing is did he not have an accountant? As I recall, this was for a business? How did the auditing firm not notice this?

Anyway, I still see no reason why he would do it on purpose. Can you name one benefit he received from it?

I love how the media keeps brushing off all these "little inconveniences" as if this was perfectly normal. So many "little inconvinences" -

1) The treasury secretary doesn't pay his taxes.
2) One of the chief environmental advisers is a member of a socialist environmentalist group that thinks big countries should sacrifice to save the planet.
3) The commerce secretary nominee had to step down because he is under investigation for pay to play corruption.
4) The governor who had control to appoint Barry's seat is under investigation for pay to play corruption.

If Paulson had done this 4 years ago he would have been hauled before the Senate for a trial and it would be front page New York Times. But all these little "problems" and the media acts as if this were completely normal.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]

No, they are different places on the same spectrum. That's why I suggested thinking it through logically.

In this case it is a rich guy nominated for a high position robbing us (the taxpayers) of thousands of dollars. And with 'obamapologsts' wrongly defending him all the way.

Just pick someone else for the job ...

One benefit? Perhaps $34,000. I honestly don't know his motivation. If it was intentional then he no doubt thought he could get away it.



He picked a lousy accountant if it went unnoticed from 2001 to 2004.