U. S. Politics II

[Guy Kilmore]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1651286' date='Jan 16 2009, 08.44']Guy,

Maybe not. But it bother's me that he's being nominated to be the chief administrator of the IRS. He may be the best person for the job but that doesn't make me feel any more comfortable having someone who forgot to pay his taxes for four years in that position.[/quote]
Not to quibble, but the term "forgot to pay his taxes" can lead to an overstatement of the position and isn't really clear. It is akin to me saying someone was driving reckless. Reckless driving leads to certain mental images even though it can also be used to describe someone driving over the speed limit. He paid his state and federal taxes. Your issue is that the amounts that were set aside by his company for, I could be a little off, is "FICA" were not paid. A mistake made by others, a mistake that he paid for.

I know that I work with those who have mental illness and chemical addiction. I know that in my life my interactions have not always been the healthiest nor appropriate. I made some willfully and others by mistake. This doesn't preclude me from running a program. I know you are a lawyer and I imagine that you have broken some law somewhere. It typically doesn't preclude you from being a lawyer. (I know both of our fields there are things we CAN do to not hold a position, those consequences are determined by the institutions which regulate us.) It again feels like you are upset that he isn't being held to a standard that you would want him too. This is an issue with the IRS not with him.

On a more personal note. I know that FICA is supposed to be taken out of my paycheck. I assume that this happens, I don't ever recall checking a paycheck to make sure. I can see some people making this mistake. I know my wife ran into an issue where the school she worked for wasn't taking enough out for her taxes and we had to pay more than normal. The issue settled fine. She had no idea that they were taking out too little and she teaches math and is savy about tax code. She just assumed that they knew what they are doing.

[Guy Kilmore]

[quote name='G'Kar' post='1651334' date='Jan 16 2009, 09.42']Should George Bush get credit for this? Are we safer at home seven years later?[/quote]
I am upset that George Bush and others aren't getting the credit they deserve for stemming off Alien invasion as well. :smoking:

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1650296' date='Jan 15 2009, 14.57']Hey Democrats and Republicans are defending him but I'm still troubled by the Treasury nominee forgetting to pay his taxes for two years. Good lord he'll be in charge of the IRS.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011403682.html?hpid=topnews"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews[/url][/quote]
See this doesn't bother me. He has an accountant, who's supposed to take care of these things. His accountant failed, when Geithner was made aware of the problem, he fixed it.
It does lend some support to the idea that the US Tax code needs an overhaul though.
As for his house-maid. it seems she was ineligible to work for a four month period, after she previously was eligible. Is he expected to ask her on a daily basis "Are you an illegal worker, today?" I think that lends support to an overhaul of immigration laws.

[Annelise]

On Geithner:

[quote]Still, the great majority of commentators – and, to all outward appearances, the majority of lawmakers who actually have to vote on Geithner’s nomination – seem convinced that the New York Fed president is still fit to run Treasury.

And for whatever reason, voters don’t seem any more interested in Geithner’s problems than they were two days ago. There are scarcely any traces of a more intense public anger starting to burn.

Jake Siewert, who served as White House press secretary in the Clinton administration, said that the current financial crisis was likely overshadowing the tax issue in Americans’ minds.

“In another time it might have caught fire a bit more,” Siewert said. “I think people want him to succeed. People want someone in that job. There are big decisions to be made today.”

Chavez agreed, adding that some Obama critics might be reluctant to challenge a nominee who is generally viewed as a moderate, middle-of-the-road pick.

“I’m sort of looking around and saying, who else could Obama name that could be as good as Geithner?” Chavez explained. “If there’s no public outcry, if people aren’t flooding members of Congress’s telephones with messages, then I think he’s going to go through.”[/quote][url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17509_Page2.html"]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17509_Page2.html[/url]

I find this interesting. I agree, another time, this would have caught fire I think. So what gives? It seems "he's the best person for the job, evenso" is prevailing in Washington.

I actually wonder if the average person sympathizes with him a little. We are talking about the IRS, which is hardly beloved by any income bracket. And perhaps some of what was said above.. folks aren't interested in looking for a less scandalous choice, they feel a sense of urgency, want things up and running.

[DanteGabriel]

Surprisingly enough, one of the most damning critiques of Bush and his solipsistic underachiever's farewell speech came from Paul Wolfowitz... It's just that he said it eight years ago:

"No U.S. president can justify a policy that fails to achieve its intended results by pointing to the purity and rectitude of his intentions." - Paul Wolfowitz, "Statesmanship in the New Century," in Kagan, R. and Kristol, W, eds. Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy, San Francisco, 2000, p. 335.

Quote posted by [url="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/quote-for-th-13.html"]Andrew Sullivan[/url].

[The Progressive]

[quote name='G'Kar' post='1651334' date='Jan 16 2009, 07.42']Are we safer at home seven years later?[/quote]

Absolutely not; even terrorist geese are now embolden to attack us :angry: .

[The Marquis de Leech]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1650557' date='Jan 16 2009, 11.59']Conservatives, expect to have Bush and the utter, disastrous failure of his freebooting right wing policies thrown back in your faces for at least a decade. There's no disowning him now.[/quote]

Yep, Bush will join the ranks of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter as a guy whom the other party will use as a convenient whipping boy for decades to come. Except that unlike Hoover and Carter (victims of circumstances beyond their control), Bush richly deserves it.

[G'Kar]

[quote name='Roose Bolton's Pet Leech' post='1652087' date='Jan 16 2009, 21.07']Yep, Bush will join the ranks of Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter as a guy whom the other party will use as a convenient whipping boy for decades to come. Except that unlike Hoover and Carter (victims of circumstances beyond their control), Bush richly deserves it.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. I would be very amused if 50 years from now (Jesus, I'd be in my 70s :ack: ) or maybe earlier, public opinion began to swing in the opposite direction and Bush would be looked on in a better light. Its happened with past Presidents.

Also, no one really answered my question (which I never really asked). People like to bash Bush, and it is easy to do so. They say he is the worst President in the history of America, and maybe thats true. But I'm wondering what good he has done for the country, and I'm seriously asking. He has been President for 8 years and has done a lot of shit (when he wasn't taking vacations). When people look back years from now, what good things will they say about Bush's presidency? Non-snarky answers please.

[Fatuous]

[quote name='G'Kar' post='1652101' date='Jan 16 2009, 21.30']Maybe, maybe not. I would be very amused if 50 years from now (Jesus, I'd be in my 70s :ack: ) or maybe earlier, public opinion began to swing in the opposite direction and Bush would be looked on in a better light. Its happened with past Presidents.

Also, no one really answered my question (which I never really asked). People like to bash Bush, and it is easy to do so. They say he is the worst President in the history of America, and maybe thats true. But I'm wondering what good he has done for the country, and I'm seriously asking. He has been President for 8 years and has done a lot of shit (when he wasn't taking vacations). When people look back years from now, what good things will they say about Bush's presidency? Non-snarky answers please.[/quote]

But snark is my specialty...
Ok, fine, I'll play it your way.

Most of the things Bush thinks are accomplishments, I'd say are disasters. Tax cuts, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the redesigned Medicare Drug plan and No Child Left Behind to name some. I wouldn't even give him "protecting American soil" as he sent Americans to die in a unnecessary war.

He could have done worse. Imagine if he tied Social Security to the Stock Market like he wanted or if he attacked Iran, never mind invaded them. Lucky for us he had the backbone of a worm and the attention span of an 8 year old.

His other best quality was that his ambition far outwieghed his ability. If he kept his ego in check and perhaps his attention on the day ahead rather than his next vacation, maybe he could have been a decent "seat warmer" President but no, he thought he was another FDR {OK, he'd probably say Lincoln} or Reagan. He was the [b]Decider[/b] and by the way Bush said it, you know it was bolded in his mind. Maybe with some of those crooked letters, all fancy like. The [b][i]Decider[/i][/b].

Fuck it, we had Yosemite Sam in the White House.
Bring it on, ya varmits...

I tried, I really did.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='G'Kar' post='1652101' date='Jan 16 2009, 20.30']Also, no one really answered my question (which I never really asked). People like to bash Bush, and it is easy to do so. They say he is the worst President in the history of America, and maybe thats true. But I'm wondering what good he has done for the country, and I'm seriously asking. He has been President for 8 years and has done a lot of shit (when he wasn't taking vacations). When people look back years from now, what good things will they say about Bush's presidency? Non-snarky answers please.[/quote]

The biggest one that will probably be pointed to, but that's pretty much impossible to confirm either way, was keeping us safe. There have been no attacks on America since 9-11. 9-11, the War on Terror, these things have essentially defined his Presidency. But of course its impossible to say how effective his actions were. Whether his actions that any sane President would've taken were enough to ensure our security or whether his 'extra steps' did the trick. We have no idea whether to attribute this 7 years of security to any of his actions at all. But people will credit him for it. First partisans. And to some extent less agenda driven political observers and perhaps some historians.

Outside of that, I don't really know. He had no other major foreign policy coups that are of the image renovating level. He won't be cited for economic good times. I can't think of any major reforms that'll bear his name. At least none that have been proven the least bit successful. Its a good question...and I'm at a loss.

[The Marquis de Leech]

[quote name='G'Kar' post='1652101' date='Jan 17 2009, 15.30']Maybe, maybe not. I would be very amused if 50 years from now (Jesus, I'd be in my 70s :ack: ) or maybe earlier, public opinion began to swing in the opposite direction and Bush would be looked on in a better light. Its happened with past Presidents.[/quote]

True, it does happen (Truman being the most extreme case, with the likes of Grant and Nixon also benefitting from revisionism), but there are a number of Presidents who have simply never left history's basement (Buchanan, Harding, Hoover), and who aren't likely to. Bush will almost certainly fall into the latter category.

[quote]Also, no one really answered my question (which I never really asked). People like to bash Bush, and it is easy to do so. They say he is the worst President in the history of America, and maybe thats true. But I'm wondering what good he has done for the country, and I'm seriously asking. He has been President for 8 years and has done a lot of shit (when he wasn't taking vacations). When people look back years from now, what good things will they say about Bush's presidency? Non-snarky answers please.[/quote]

Bush's good stuff: he was great in terms of aid to Africa. Can't think of much else.

[Shryke]

Bush kept us safe from Aliens AND Terrorists. Quite the accomplishment!

[El-ahrairah]

Farewell, soon-to-be-ex-President. May the hindsight of centuries judge you fairly.

Well met, soon-to-be-President. Where I old enough, my vote would have been cast against you last November. May the next four years prove you worthy.

[potsherds]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1652207' date='Jan 17 2009, 05.11']Farewell, soon-to-be-ex-President. May the hindsight of centuries judge you fairly.

Well met, soon-to-be-President. Where I old enough, my vote would have been cast against you last November. May the next four years prove you worthy.[/quote]
Heh, oh wow. You're too young to be such a bigot. What a shame.


The only good things I can think of Bush accomplishing it increasing aid to Africa, with some issues about abstinence only programs, no condoms, and such over there, and also some of the marine preservation stuff he's done.

I think he was a disaster and will remain as such in history. I can't wait for that bastard to be officially out on his ass.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1652207' date='Jan 16 2009, 23.11']Farewell, soon-to-be-ex-President. May the hindsight of centuries judge you fairly.

Well met, soon-to-be-President. Where I old enough, my vote would have been cast against you last November. May the next four years prove you worthy.[/quote]

And I will never quite understand this. Just the act of picking Palin alone constituted such a colossal lack of judgment that it should automatically disqualify him from office. Hell, simply placing her that close to the White House (or attempting to) may as well be an act of treason. What else was there to admire in the campaign? The thinly veiled appeals to fear and bigotry? The constant focus on petty character assassination and irrelevant non-issues while the economy burned? What was the appeal?

My 5 year old cousin was a big fan of him because they shared the same first name, and I guess that's about the best reason I've heard this election cycle for voting R.

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1652224' date='Jan 17 2009, 01.41']Heh, oh wow. You're too young to be such a bigot. What a shame.[/quote]

I'm really failing to see what's bigoted about El-ahrairah's post. Does he have some mod-deleted stuff of egregious quality I'm unaware of?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Dinsdale!' post='1652275' date='Jan 17 2009, 01.40']I'm really failing to see what's bigoted about El-ahrairah's post. Does he have some mod-deleted stuff of egregious quality I'm unaware of?[/quote]

Might be referring to a different thread.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1652277' date='Jan 16 2009, 23.45']Might be referring to a different thread.[/quote]
Might be, but I'm an enemy of thread bleed over. It shits on the relative merits of the discourse of individual threads.

And "too young to vote" = "allowed some slack/ not dangerous yet" besides.

[El Chico]

Guys, he never said he wanted to vote Republican......and if he was, that doesn't necessarily make him a bigot, though the probability of it increases.

As to Bush...Iraq alone will always be a permanent black mark against his name. It's the most unneccessary war in American history, and it alone qualifies him to be reviled. To me, it's a far worse abuse of power than Watergate ever was. The blame doesn't lie with him alone; we stood by and let it happen.

Even his "triumphs" were tainted, in many cases. I think somebody mentioned this upthread, but his AIDs relief to Africa had a lot strings attached. He also supported abstinence-only prevention programs there, which have been proven time and time again to be ineffective.

My beef with him (along with Iraq) was his attitude towards scientific research and general intellectualism. He took pride in ignorance and mysticism; he brought the religious right, people, who should never, ever be in charge of the most powerful country on Earth, to new heights.

[davos]

[quote]Should George Bush get credit for this? Are we safer at home seven years later?[/quote]

lets look at it a different way. Bill Clinton had 1 forgeign terrorist attatck on US soil during his presidency. Bush the elder had none. Reagan had none. Carter, as far as I know, had none. Actually now that I think about it I'm not aware of any, at least of any note, during US history until the WTC bombing early in Clinton's term. Despite the possibility for a forgeign terrorist attack getting far more attention and fear even prior to 9/11, domestic terrorism has been the far bigger problem. (Mind you the only domestic terror incident that even approaches the scale and impact of 9/11 was the oklahoma city bombing) So we have a grand total of 2 forgeign terror incidents on US soil. Bush having one attack occur during his presidency therefore presided over as more forgeign terror incidents on us soil than all but 1 other president. Even if we look at the last 30 or so years, when the threat of such attacks has increased, its still impossibly to say if bush's post 9/11 policies in any way limited attacks.