What do you think of Geithner as treas sec?
 

Do we want a Treasury Secretary who evaded his taxes?

He only paid up AFTER he was tapped for Treas Sec... I pay my taxes and pay them on time. Shouldn't he do the same?

If I owed the IRS $34000.00 I can bet that they would have taken my house by now. Now Geithner is going to be the head of the IRS? Fox running the hen house?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/img/ap_logo.gif?hl=en


http://www.google.com/hostednews/img/inactive-left.gifhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/img/active-right.gifPhoto 1 of 5http://www.google.com/hostednews/img/zoom-disabled.gifhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...TO7fcwg?size=s
Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner, right, listens Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., as he introduces him on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2009, during Geithner's confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...O7fcwg?size=xs
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...YCRqQQ?size=xs


Geithner apologizes for taxes, moves toward OK

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Timothy Geithner apologized to Congress Wednesday for what he called "careless mistakes" in failing to pay $34,000 in taxes and moved closer to confirmation as treasury secretary and the Obama administration's point man in reviving the economy.
While some Republican lawmakers questioned whether Geithner was being forthright in the explanation of his tax errors, he appeared to have sufficient support to win approval from the Senate Finance Committee.
Several senators told Geithner during the panel's lengthy confirmation hearing that they planned to vote for his nomination. And Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., told him, "You will be confirmed" although Roberts said his phones were "ringing off the hook" from constituents upset about the prospect of having a treasury secretary who was so careless in tending to his own taxes.
Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., scheduled a committee vote for Thursday with new Obama administration hoping the nomination can quickly be approved by the full Senate so that Geithner can assume his role in dealing with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Baucus called Geithner's tax transgressions "disappointing mistakes," but said he believes they were innocent ones — and should not bar Geithner, who is currently the head of the Federal Reserve's New York regional bank, from serving in the administration's top economic position.
Geithner told the panel he was sorry that his past tax mistakes were now an issue in his confirmation at a time of deepening economic distress.
"These were careless mistakes. They were avoidable mistakes, but they were unintentional," Geithner told the committee. "I should have been more careful."
Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes from 2001 to 2004 for money he earned while he worked at the International Monetary Fund. He paid some of the taxes in 2006 after an Internal Revenue Service audit discovered the discrepancy for the years 2003 and 2004. But it wasn't until two years later, days before President Obama tapped him to head Treasury last November, that Geithner paid back taxes he owed for the years 2001 and 2002.
He did so after Obama's transition team found that Geithner had made the same tax mistake his first two years at the IMF as the one the IRS found he made during his last two years at the international lending agency.
On the economy, Geithner pledged to work closely with Congress to overhaul the controversial $700 billion financial rescue program and to win approval for a new economic stimulus program of around $825 billion. He promised to listen to suggestions made by Congress on how to shape both programs.
Geithner, who has worked in the Treasury Department under three presidents, addressed criticism over how the bailout money has been spent so far by the outgoing Bush administration. Many lawmakers have complained that most of the $350 billion-plus committed so far has gone to the banking industry and has done little to help individual homeowners facing foreclosure.
Geithner told the senators that he and Obama "share your belief that this program needs serious reform."
He said the still-evolving Obama economic plan would include a comprehensive housing package.
"In this crisis, our financial system failed to meet its most basic obligations," Geithner said. "The system was too fragile and unstable, and because of this, the system was unfair and unjust. Individuals, families and businesses that were careful and responsible were damaged by the actions of those who were not."
While many members of the panel said they accepted Geithner's explanation of the tax errors, several Republicans pressed Geithner more closely.
Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican, said he found Geithner's failure to pay taxes troubling because it "reflects a degree of negligence toward the law that he will be charged with enforcing." The treasury secretary oversees the IRS.
Geithner told the panel that for the 2001 and 2002 tax years, he had done his tax returns himself with a tax-preparation computer program. He said he hired an accountant to do his 2003 and 2004 taxes who "did not catch my error."
He acknowledged signing an IMF statement saying he was aware that it was his responsibility to fully pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. "I absolutely should have read it more carefully," he said. "I signed it in the mistaken belief I was complying with my obligations."
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the panel, said there was a danger in giving the appearance of sweeping Geithner's tax problems under the rug since he will be in charge of the IRS. But Grassley said he recognized that many in Congress viewed Geithner as "possibly the only man for the job of healing the recession before us and a very fractured economy."

I find it hard to believe that the people in Washington would be unable to find someone else to piss away another 350 billion dollars if Geithner doesn't end up getting the nod.

Maybe somebody that is currently figuring out how to spend the next 825 billion they now say they need to "fix" the economy?

Does he know anything about Arabian horses?

I don't like it. Like you I pay all my taxes on time. Careless with 34 grand? There is no place good to go with that. He is asking to be trusted with the nations money and he is either careless or a liar and cheat. But maybe the issue is everybody else is a bigger crook and not as smart.

In an unspoken way he confirms what BS the current tax system is. Having him inside gives all the better chances of changing a broken system.

I dunno, but it might be better if he were an expert with horses because as a tax expert, he sucks.

Or as Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Bad mojo.

It's a load of crap, and I'd ask that he step down, but for some reason the Democrats don't EVER feel the need to step down regardless of the circumstances.

I agree, the excuse he gave about not knowing if his employer withheld the taxes is just BS. It make him sound like he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. But that's just the opinion of a trolling right wing racist whacko:rolleyes:

Less than a full day after an 'inclusive" inaugural speech . . . back to business as usual, the demonizing of one side by the other. Are you so certain that the Republicans are so easy to step down, aside, or asunder? :rolleyes:

So you have no problem with Geithner "forgetting" to pay the back taxes until Obama tapped him for Treas. Sec?

I don't know why, but I have a problem with it. I guess I am a cracker racist @sshole too....

I don't know enough about the man to form an opinion. If my only source of information is the "story of the day" . . . then that would be a pretty piss poor way of coming to some judgment of a person. My response to POS was to point out that moving away from "partisan" generalities and mud slinging goes on no matter what.

How much of the story is there to be known.

His employer reviewed with each employee what were their tax liabilities.
He failed to pay.
He did not "forget". (If he really did forget, then he is an idiot.)

Business as usual, political insider gets important job regardless of his experience, knowledge, or morality.
Same old same old.
Is this the Bush administration?

It doesn't look good from what I have read but I am not sure all the facts are known yet.

If he's not clean I predict that O will ask him to remove himself from the process.

There is no excuse for not paying these taxes - period. To my mind this does not pass the "Any damn fool should know" test - even worse for a economics professional. I would vote against his nomination just for that alone.

The hoople's a money man,for rice cake.
IMF? Nobody in such a position to accumulate wealth or manage it forgets taxes,just another smartass with ethics that rise and fall with the prevailing tides.

It's racism! The honkie gets away with it while muh man, Wesley Snipes is incarcerated for it.

Boys and girls, the word for today is "incarceration". Can you say "incarceration"?....
From a long-ago SNL skit.

I see; when Bush was in office it's fine to attack Republicans, but now that Obama is in it's a new age of enlightenment? It's going to be a long four years if I'm not entitled to do what was done for the past eight.

The statute had run on those two years when he was audited by the IRS. He was under no legal obligation then (when audited) or now to pay those taxes.

This kind of thing happens all the time. Assume you are one of those FNIAs who prepares their own return and innocently (or not) mishandles reporting something on your return year in and year out. IRS audits you and adjusts your returns. If there is no indication of fraud, the statute of limitations is three years. So, who here would go back, oh, say six more years and pony up all those taxes when not legally required to ?? I wouldn't advise someone to.

From what I gather, he did include these IMF payments in income, but did not report them as payments subject to S/E tax. So, the Government lost out on the medicare tax portion (2.9%) of his IMF payments. (I assume his salary with the Fed Reserve is subject to FICA and his earnings were over the FICA limits, which in those years was 80,400 and 84,900. )

That said, I doubt he's the ONLY guy in America who can fill the position of Treas. Sec. If he is, we is in trouble.:rolleyes:

Not get away with it, got promoted!


People say, 'didn't pay his taxes' because that sounds obviously terrible. People don't say, 'didn't pay 2.9% of his taxes'.

Honestly though, there's not a very limited number of people who can fill the job. But, only a very limited number of people's opinions matter when determining who's good for the job. And those people don't pay their taxes either. The business elite are really the ones who do the confirmation, and they did it already.
IOW, he's not the fox guarding the henhouse, he's the fox guarding the other foxes.

That is about as kind of a spin as can be put on the situation. He KNEW==His employer met with everyone to insure they were aware, and according to one report, even paid extra income to cover the expected taxes.
If he gets the nomination it is an indication of business as usual.

How long until we pine for the good ole days of the W administration?

Not really spin, just an explanation of how the law is written.
But, yes, he was informed of the proper tax treatment and still mishandled it. I don't know if it ever came out if he prepared his own returns or had an accountant prepare it. At least he could claim the "Oops" defense. The " I didn't look it over before I filed it" excuse! Blame my accountant. :rolleyes:

But if he did,as you relate, pay extra income (taxes) to cover the expected taxes", it seems like he was acting in good faith originally and later, when he prepared it, he goofed up.

As a CPA, I don't think it's a big deal. I don't have a problem giving him a pass on this. And I'm not exactly what you would call a Democratic Supporter.;)

I think you miss the point. The divissive "the Republicans/Democrats" or "right winger/ left winger" generalizations is what I object to. The recent election was a victory for the moderates, not the fringe wings of either side.

By that I assume that you mean giving the President approval ratings above 90%, as were enjoyed by George Bush in 2001. I also assume that you mean that Congress will do whatever the President wants, the press will report every claim made by the President without checking the facts, and that people will be accused of being anti-American if they criticize the President. Like it or not, that's the situation that was presented to George Bush.

He did not pay; his employer paid him extra to compensate for the extra taxes.
If my employer decides to give me a $5000 bonus, they check I get is somewhat less, say about $3300. This is because they with held the taxes. If they gave me a $5000 check for the bonus, and then another $2000 check for the taxes, it would approximate what Geithner rec'd.

The IMF doesn't do that exactly. They have a formula they use to pay US employees their taxes. They don't do their employees' taxes for them, they just tell them you are getting X dollars to cover your taxes. It's up to the employee to do his/her own taxes.

Thanks for your informed and unbias assessment.

My dog ate my tax return........ :rolleyes:

If we have a repeat of the last 8 years, there will be nothing left of the American middle class.

MS,

Your post was not clear to me, I took it to mean the HE paid extra taxes to the Govt to cover his IMF income. And I haven't read into what actually occurred.
If the IMF paid him "extra" to cover his "extra taxes", the extra reimbursement is also subject to income and self-employment tax. So, if the boss gives you 5,000 and then another 2,000 "for the taxes", you have 7,000 of taxable income. I'm sure you agree with that.

Regardless, I still give him a pass. Probably an innocent mistake. I wouldn't assume that his position in the Fed. Reserve gives him any more expertise or interest in the Code than anyone else.

I may be wrong, but I'll be surprised if his name is added to the Confirmation Hall of Shame, including Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, Clement Hainsworth, and "Judge Mediocracy", G Harold Carswell :D, to name just a recent few.
And I'll live with it....;)

USA Today had a slightly different version of the story. Reported that the statute of limitations ran out on the 01 and 02 years, so he paid no taxes for those years. Finally paid the other years only after being called out. Innocent mistake by someone who is supposed to be the financial savior, highly doubtful. Hell no I don't want him in that position. Shameful, but then again, would I expect any less out of an elected official?
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Just another way of Obama telling the U.S. "Hey, just another crooked bastard in my cabinet, so get used to it you sheeple."
The more we get dumbed down with more crooked politicians, the more the norm it will be, plus nobody better dare question anything the great Barak Hussein Obamassiah does otherwise the secret police may pay you a visit, or worse, Oprah may condemn you on national tele'.

That kid's like a kid in an executive order candy store.

I hope his pen runs out of ink while we still have individual rights.

I would love to see you expound on that thought. How, exactly, has Obama done anything to impair individual rights?

Okay, what about his senate voting record on the rights of the unborn?
How is supporting measures that rip unborn babies to shreads and tearing them limb from limb and sucking them into a bucket supporting an individual right? Huh?
Where is the individual right for those children?

What about his senate voting record on the rights for individuals to keep and bear arms?

His anti gun proposals are so Clintonesque with words like "Common sense" gun measures.
Common sense gun measures masked as great ways to surb crime but are realy aimed at banning guns and ammunition, bankrupting firearms manufacturers and making them succeptible to frivolous lawsuits.

How about his thought on the fairness doctrine, and how that pertains to the first amendment. Dude, wake up.

To tell you the truth it's really a waste of my time to argue facts with you liberals, you have the blinders on and nothing will convince you of the facts if it punched you in the face.
Everything is a freaking argument on this forum with no solutions other than name calling and self serving, immature third grade type childish jabs.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Clinging to Religion and Guns
Guns and God. This is what it may very well come down to in November 2008. Senators Obama and Biden are struggling to act as though their past record as anti-gun politicians is irrelevant. On the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Obama felt compelled to say "If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it." When he saw skeptics in the crowd, he began pandering and vacillating. "Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress. This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns."

Old news, perhaps, but an examination shows Barak Obama's voting record and his proposals on gun control to be only exceeded by that of his partner, Joe Biden. If Obama had the same influence and length of time in office as Biden, his history on gun control might be even more appalling.

On Jan 15, 2008, at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, when queried about licensing and registering gun owners as President, Obama stated: "I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen."

Regarding a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois, Barak Obama claimed "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's views were clear on a 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit group, Independent Voters of Illinois, asked these simple, direct questions, Obama's answers are in bold:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's presidential campaign claims a staffer filled out these questionnaires, not Senator Obama. "There are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views," they say. Yet now he makes it clear that he knows he does not have the votes in Congress to do just that. Men who have no intentions of disarming the populace have no need to examine whether they have the political power to do so.

In a 2004 survey conducted by the Chicago Tribune of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate, Barak Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carry legislation except for law enforcement is needed. Obama elaborated, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." But there is more.......

From the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999:
"Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.

At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he's backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a "shot-free" millennium celebration.

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.

Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He's also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.

Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths."
When questioned by the Chicago Tribune in 2007 regarding Heller v District of Columbia, Obama stated the "DC handgun law is constitutional."

A quick synopsis from CNN regarding Obama's record on gun control:
"Voted against a 2005 law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers stemming from acts committed by others using their products.
Supports instant criminal background checks on people purchasing guns and believes law should apply to gun sales at gun shows. Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing. Supports making guns childproof and voted for 2005 child safety lock amendment. Would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share data on history of sales and transfers of firearms used in crimes only with federal agencies for national security purposes, or prosecutors needing it for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Regarding the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama did not sign a friend-of-the-court brief that urged the Supreme Court to overturn the District of Columbia gun ban. At a debate, when asked about case, Obama said he believes "that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right." Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency."
The Washington Times noted:
"In 2000, for example, the NRA mounted a massive direct-mail and TV/radio campaign against Mr. Gore's candidacy and his gun control voting record. Voter exit polls in that election showed that about 48 percent of all voters owned guns that year, up from 37 percent in 1996."
How many Americans own guns in 2008? How many American carry concealed for self defense in 2008? As the 2008 election heats up, it is incumbent on gun owners to avail themselves and others with the facts concerning the greatest threat to gun ownership ever to close in on the White House. Senator Obama said "This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back?"

Yeah, we can hear you in the back Senator. These are damned good reasons not to vote for you. Gun owners have the power to keep Barak Obama and Joe Biden out of the oval office and the power to protect our freedoms. It's time for us to again rise up and be heard.

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." — Winston Churchill
Labels: Gun Control, Politics

That's a fair argument, although I'm sure that many would see an expansion of the right to choose as an expansion of individual liberty. I'm not saying that Obama is right on this issue, but I didn't see his position as being anti-liberty.Why did you feel the need for the "Huh"? Kind of rude, don't you think?Their rights have been subordinated to the rights of their mothers. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I don't see Obama's position on that issue as being anti-liberty.You might know of specific votes on that issue that I missed, but Obama is on your side with respect to the 2d Amendment. He took heat from the left for saying that he agrees that the 2d Amendment confers individual rights. As for frivolous lawsuits, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. You have apparently bought into the insurance industry propaganda on taht issue.I don't know what your concept of the fairness doctrine is, so it's hard for me to respond. Most of what I've seen recently on the fairness doctrine have been scare tactics from the right.Dude, don't be so rude.What an unbelievable load of crap that is.

I don't see how you get from those facts to the conclusion that Obama is going to take away all of our individual rights. It's not clear to me that he is anti-gun at all, although I have not made a study of his positions on that issue. If the article you posted is the best evidence against him, then I'd say that you've got a weak case.

Dude, you need to grow a thicker skin for one thing.
This is the internet by golly.

How about "Let's agree to disagree.":P

Kumbay-freaking-ya!!!!

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e5...lla/COMEDY.gif

That whole civility thing is dependent on who's ox is being gored. ;)

So you are predicting he will act just like GWB?;)

Dude, you need to quit talking down to people.Looks like you're the one with thin skin. I asked you a question. you gave a good answer, some of which I agreed with. So, I don't see why we should agree to disagree, unless the conversation is upsetting you.

How bout we get back the the Geithner subject?

Who better than a tax cheat to dictate a "favorable"economic policy?

Done deal.

Next.

No, just pissed at Obama's BS, I'm tired of smooth talking BS already, his cabinet gun banning, loonies.

Nothing against you personally at all.
I just thought you took things a little too seriously and interjected some, what I thought was, humor as I responded to your question, not your emotions.

I guess you were'nt laughing.

I also don't see why or how you thought I was talking down to you.

You are probably taller than me anyways.....that was a joke....

Not laughing still?

Anyways to get back on track, yeah, his appointment of the guy feels like a big slap in the face to the honest tax payers, and feels like a message from the Obama administration that we better get used to his crooked buddies because we are gonna find out real quick just who's boss.
The mainstream meadia already gave the dude a free passand defended his every move, now anyone who simply questions Obama will be villified by the mainstream media.
For example, Rush Limbaugh.
Is Rush and egotistical, self centered, pompous, fat faced jack ass?
Well, yeah,BUT he has all the right in the world to question Obama, Bush, Achmedinijad, or Whomever else he wants, but the media is pushing very, very, very hard to silence people like him, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, what's her face, tall blonde??
This administration does not want anyone questioning them and their tactics, does this not scare you at all????

This in conjunction with his staunch anti gun administration regardless of his promise not to take our guns.
Maybe legislate them into non existence with a plethora of permits, restrictions, taxes, and yes banning the crap out of what the government deems NON-SPORTING.
C'mon, the dude is anti gun all the way.

Hillary had also promised a while back that if she were president she would sign an agreement with the UN to ban the use of arms worldwide.

There has also been alot of talk about ammending the constitution to suit their agenda, yes they can ammend the crap out of it with enough support.

How big do we need to let them get?

Once our voice and our guns are gone, what leg to the people have to stand on while we are paying out the wazu for government bailouts and illegals health care, prison care, baby care??
Who keeps the government in check?

We think we do now, but we are kidding ourselves, they do whatever the hell they want regardless most of the time so I take it pretty freaking personally when the government tries to strip me of my freedoms that I enjoy Obama, Bush, Jimmy Carter, or whomever, they all suck to an extent and I understand a president cannot agree with everybody all the time, but c'mon, government just plain lost it's common sense, and this Obama socialism is NOT the answer to todays problems.

I think the guy sedeuced alot of people, and I also think he used race as a really big issue.
But I think if his supporters actually cared more about his voting record and his policies instead of the one half color that he pimped himself to be, they would have voted someone else in like Mike Huckaby, or ???

Prepare for impact.

^^^^^^^^Hear Hear!!!

Now I always imagined it would be spelled "here, here!".

Did I hear where Congress wants to put together an advisory group made up of the heads of the Wall Street financial companies and have them tell Congress how to work thru this financial crisis?

Wow! Talk about the foxes guarding the hen house? Weren't these the guys who got us into this mess. How about the CEO of Goldman Sachs and Lehrman ? Their companies failed--probably due to excessive leverage and insufficient capital--and they are going to advise us?

Somehow, when I'm handed a check...the first thought that STILL GOES THROUGH MY MIND since I started earning a paycheck back in the '70s is "What the hell kind of dent am I looking at this pay period?"

Taxes are the secondary aspect to getting your pay...

I've also contracted myself out...

I get the WHOLE CHECK and I think "Jesus...is there going to be anything left?"

If I remember, I end up with about 60% of the original check...and when I was contracting, I always ended up paying more by the 15th of April...

ALWAYS...

So, assuming for the moment that "G" is working as an employee...he either over-estimated the exemptions he was qualified to take and his employer didn't take out extra...

...or, he was a "contractor" (with the IMF) and he didn't take out anything...just cashed the check and to top it off, he didn't even bother to file quarterly...

Anyway you look at this...he's so aloof about his own personal finances that he figures it will all take care of itself with no input from him...or he's hoping the aura of "O" will deflect any criticisim due to the "honeymoom effect" and it appears that all will happen just as he's hoping...a small slap on his financial fanny where his wallet's being kept...

You and I, however, would be fastly sinking in the mire of an IRS onslaught for the simple matter of a few hundred dollars and the further weight of additional penalties and even garnishments...

Yep...BAU...even better yet because it's the "Era Of 'O'" for those select few at the top...

BTW, that small, side-track hi-jack of the thread regarding the guns...there are those among us watching where that's going...Pelosi and Reid have ALWAYS been anti-gunners and I don't think for once second that those two clowns have changed their face-paint to placate their constituents...

That's the leadership of this country RIGHT NOW...if one person has ALREADY "executive ordered" stem-cell research funding and experimentation to begin anew in less than a week after taking office...what kind of signal does that show the other two leaders?

You'd have to be blind to miss that show...

But, you can be partisan...and not stand up for what's right... :rolleyes: