American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;412154]I think it's a bit amusing that stan voted for obama, despite admitting he did not agree with his domestic agenda or economic policies. And now he's upset with obama over his domestic agenda and economic policies.[/QUOTE]Typical.

Esten, I stopped responding to you because you're not credible. You simply lie, and it's not worth the time to discuss matters with someone who can't stick to facts. Unfortunately, I've got to do so now. I did not vote for Obama and have never said I did, here or anywhere else.

No doubt you'll claim this was simply an innocent mistake. After enough "mistakes, " however, your credibility gets shot, and it's not worth having a discussion with you. You may claim that this is because our politics differ. But, while richard was here, I was happy to debate him, and he is even further to the left of you. The difference is, he stuck to the truth. You don't. It's typical of the left, and I was happy to find that richard was an exception. Unfortunately, it's more of the same from you.

I await your link to a credible story on the 58 Bush White house aides who supposedly owed back taxes. I won't debate it with you. As I said, I'm done with that. But, you ought to at least back up your bs. If you can't, we'll all know why.

According to this politics daily article, the current $831k back tax amounts for employees of the executive office is about the same as it was in the last year of the bush administration. But they don't cite a source.

Http: /www. Politicsdaily. Com/tag/back+taxes+owed/

It's all b. S. Anyway. If you've ever gotten a deficiency notice from the irs, you owed back taxes and continued to owe them until the irs decided that the issue got resolved. I recall getting two of them over the years. One went away when I sent them the number I'd forgotten to write down on my return and the other was the result of a math error I made long before the days of turbotax. They were no big deal. Most small-business people I know seem to have open issues with the irs all the time that sometimes stretch back several years as correspondence goes back and forth about the issue.

The only reason to bring it up is to try and use people's ignorance of reality to try and score political points. The reality is 4% of taxpayers owe back taxes at any point in time and I can't think of any reason that people who work in government should be any different. Now, if the irs has taken someone to court and won a judgment for fraud or willful negligence, and that person was in an important position in the government, that would be worth talking about.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;411135]As further evidence, I posted long ago that, if I had voted this last election, it would have been for Obama.[/QUOTE]I remembered this statement from you on 7/28 to be you had voted for him. I was mistaken. Although I don't think it is something entirely different from what I thought you said. But I do acknowledge the mistake.

Here is the article for federal workers who owed back taxes under Bush. The article cites irs records obtained through the freedom of information act. The 58 is under the same category as the 41 you cited (executive office of the president) so its apples to apples. You were quick to label it "bs", but that's not the case.

Http: /www. Wtop. Com/? Nid=25&sid=1478352

If I learn I have said something inaccurate I will acknowledge it without trying to dodge. And I spend a good deal of time fact-checking before I write, not 100% of the time but quite a bit. Out of the many things I have written in this thread, I am confident you will not find much that is presented as fact (vs opinion) that isn't fact. I may joke sometimes or counter one-sided arguments with the same, but one thing I don't do is lie. That's a pretty strong character attack.

I'll point out stan's game for those who may be missing it. Fact is, we haven't debated much at all. We exchanged comments directly a few times but that's it. Instead of engaging me in a meaningful debate, stan has chosen to jump right to smear tactics in his comments about me being lost and now a liar. I guess that's an easier path, but not one I respect.

Stan I'll welcome any meaningful discussion or debate from you. I think it is likely you would find I have valid points, and/or you have misunderstood things I said before. However if you choose not to, I still reserve the right to respond to narrow, one-sided and other similar posts you may make.

Esten is this the link you were trying to P. S?

[url]http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1478352[/url]

I would have to agree that this is an issue not solely related to one party. However, the extraordinary number of Obama appointees that had unpaid taxes and got away with it brought this issue to the fore. Particularly, the imminently, unqualified timothy geithner.

I think it would be safe to say that americans in general find it appalling that many, many folks in both houses of congress, the justice department, the treasury, home land defense and other federal agencies owe billions of dollars in back taxes (on average $7k-17k/delinquent) while ostensibly enacting and enforcing the laws upon the citizenry, while skirting those same laws themselves.

It is interesting that "the irs is the only federal agency where an employee can be fired for not paying his taxes. " "can" being the operative word in the previous passage considering the treatment given to the irs top boss, geithner.

The sheer hypocrisy of the situation and the fact that "washington" and the ruling class are held to a different standard than regular folks is fueling the velvet rebellion. What is particularly galling is that the standard for those who rule us is actually lower than that to which we are held.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412225]What is particularly galling is that the standard for those who rule us is actually lower than that to which we are held.[/QUOTE]And they get better health care.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Sysco234; 412226]and they get better health care.

Sysco[/QUOTE]They get better healthcare and they are exempt from Obamacare

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;412235]They get better healthcare and they are exempt from Obamacare[/QUOTE]Which is why they have BETTER healthcare. I would accept any law that Congress and the Senate were willing to live with themselves. For some reason, they need to have their own special version.

Sysco

[QUOTE=Sysco234;412237]Which is why they have BETTER healthcare. I would accept any law that Congress and the Senate were willing to live with themselves. For some reason, they need to have their own special version.[/QUOTE]A grave and dangerous problem is that Congress and the Senate [I]don't bother[/I] to live under the laws they make for the masses. They hold themselves above us as an elite, an aristocracy.

I don't see anything in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, that serves as a basis for this arrogance.

Earlier this year, one of my friends passed along a proposed Amendment to the USA Constitution, along the lines of:

1. Congress shall enact no law regarding themselves that does not apply equally and identically to the People of the United States.

2. Congress shall enact no law regarding the People of the United States that does not apply equally and identically to themselves.

Perfect example? Obamacare. I brought [I]handwritten[/I] letters to the "House Call to Capital Hill", last April, for my Congressperson and both Senators; the core concept was "If you buy it for us you're honor-bound to take it for yourselves. " One Senator did have a form letter sent to me about how proud she was of having passed Obamacare.

Jeez, give me a break!

[QUOTE=Westy;412247]A grave and dangerous problem is that Congress and the Senate [I]don't bother[/I] to live under the laws they make for the masses. They hold themselves above us as an elite, an aristocracy.[/quote]You are absolutely correct. The bastardization of the system that the founders envisioned has resulted in a ruling class. This is something that the founders never envisioned and tried mightily to avoid. Escaping totalitarian rule was part of the origin of this place they call America.

[quote=]I don't see anything in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, that serves as a basis for this arrogance.[/quote]Don't waste your time, it ain't there

[quote=]Earlier this year, one of my friends passed along a proposed Amendment to the USA Constitution, along the lines of:

1. Congress shall enact no law regarding themselves that does not apply equally and identically to the People of the United States.

2. Congress shall enact no law regarding the People of the United States that does not apply equally and identically to themselves. [/quote]That would fly in the face of the existing congressional mandate: "Congress shall enact no law that infringes, in any way, the free lunch we dirtbag members have stolen form the honest hardworking citizenry. "

[quote=]Perfect example? Obamacare. I brought [I]handwritten[/I] letters to the "House Call to Capital Hill", last April, for my Congressperson and both Senators; the core concept was "If you buy it for us you're honor-bound to take it for yourselves. " One Senator did have a form letter sent to me about how proud she was of having passed Obamacare.[/quote]Proud of foisting something upon you that she and her progeny will never have to encounter. Seems fair to me.

[quote=]Jeez, give me a break![/QUOTE]There are no breaks. Get off your ass, get everyone you know (that isn't a complete asshole) and get them to vote this November and every November thereafter. Freedom, the American Dream and all the other quaint ideals that go with them are not free. Thankfully, most Americans don't ever have to do more than get off the couch and pull a lever or check a box.

Punter- That's the link, thanks.

Doppel- If you want to continue our spending discussion, fine. Incredibly, you are STILL making incorrect statements! The CBO projection for Republican Paul Ryan's request is based on ARRA provision extensions that DON'T EXIST. You should acknowledge that. Stimulus/ARRA spending could never exceed $1T because spending in that bill is capped at $499B. To get to $1T spending you could add in TARP, but even that won't do it. Yes Obama spent some of the TARP funds. But it matters little how much each president spent, because much of TARP has been repaid; an estimate as of April 12, 2010 is the total cost will be $89B. To get to $1T spending, you could try adding up ALL spending programs under Obama (not Bush) and see what you get. I haven't bothered but I definately have not found evidence of $1T spending (to date), certainly not under ARRA, TARP or the CNN list you referenced.

I don't argue Obama is spending a lot... Of course he is and for good reason. I'm simply correcting your mis-statements. I welcome your attempt to do the math and demonstrate with credible evidence that Obama has spent (not just committed) $1T so far, as you keep claiming. I am confident you cannot.

To provide some perspective on back taxes, consider this article from 2008:

60, 000 firms owe $8B in taxes [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-24-unpaid-taxes_N.htm[/url]

Of course our elected (or appointed) officials should be held to a high standard on paying taxes. But in terms of dollars the $9. 3 million owed by Capitol Hill employees is a drop in the bucket compared to the private sector. And this $8B number is only for federal contractors, so the total private sector number is likely much larger.

I've said before the real problems facing our country come from the private sector, not the government. Back taxes are yet another private sector issue, though by no means the main problem.

[I]"Riding a wave of conservative anger, Tea Party darling and Sarah Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell shockingly defeats Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. " [/I]

This was one of the more divisive GOP primaries. What do you guys make of the result?

[QUOTE=Esten; 412288]To provide some perspective on back taxes, consider this article from 2008:

60, 000 firms owe $8B in taxes [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-24-unpaid-taxes_N.htm[/url]

[/quote]Comparing firms to individuals is a little sophomoric, even for you.

[quote=]Of course our elected (or appointed) officials should be held to a high standard on paying taxes.[/quote]Then why don't you?

[quote=] But in terms of dollars the $9. 3 million owed by Capitol Hill employees is a drop in the bucket compared to the private sector.[/quote]Well then that makes it all right.

[quote=] And this $8B number is only for federal contractors, so the total private sector number is likely much larger.[/quote]Probably lower. If federal employees don't have to worry about enforcement, why should contractors.

[quote=]I've said before the real problems facing our country come from the private sector, not the government.[/quote]Which is why you support eliminating it (the private sector)

[quote=] Back taxes are yet another private sector issue, though by no means the main problem.[/QUOTE]Why not collect taxes that are due before increasing taxes on those who actual pay them.

[QUOTE=Esten; 412289][I]"Riding a wave of conservative anger, Tea Party darling and Sarah Palin-backed Christine O'Donnell shockingly defeats Rep. Mike Castle in Delaware's GOP Senate primary. " [/I]

This was one of the more divisive GOP primaries. What do you guys make of the result? [/QUOTE]Wow, I am all torn up inside worrying about this "civil war" within the GOP. This must be the first divisive primary ever. I guess the republicans are going to get creamed in November.

What I see is that people are so pissed about the direction of the country. Which at this point can only be the Democrats' fault since they dominate the congress and control the White house. That they are willing to take a conservative with some blemishes over a "party" man who really should have a "Dem" next to his name. I would have to say that does not bode well for those who really do have "Ds" next to their names in November.