« On-line Dating Services (just pretend this is a liberal version of the eclectic WSJ) | stillidealistic's Blog | Just How Screwed Are We? »
Obama's Standards Too High?
I am watching Hardball and the question is being asked whether or not Obama's standards are too high, and that's why he is having problems getting his people through the confirmation process...
Are you kidding me????
His standards are not too high, the American people's standards are too low! Apparently we have elected a bunch of people to represent us that think the tax laws (that they wrote?) were not meant for them...just us peons.
If nothing else, this confirmation process should have us asking a whole bunch more questions of the people who are running for office.
But what to do now? First, the IRS should audit every member of Congress. The people who write and approve the tax laws, above all others, should be living by them. And second, every person who is looking to go into a high - mid level position in the Obama Administration should be backing out now if their tax situation is not in order...This is an embarrassment to our President and it needs to stop. And third, ANYONE who is in an elected office, from City Councilman to Senator, across the country, should make sure they have paid all the taxes they owe...They have been placed in positions of trust, and if we can't trust them to have paid their fair share of taxes, how can we trust them, period?
I'm sick of politics being such a dirty business. It's almost like we expect it, so we tolerate it. I don't believe it has to be that way, but it will continue, as long as we allow it to.
Are you kidding me????
His standards are not too high, the American people's standards are too low! Apparently we have elected a bunch of people to represent us that think the tax laws (that they wrote?) were not meant for them...just us peons.
If nothing else, this confirmation process should have us asking a whole bunch more questions of the people who are running for office.
But what to do now? First, the IRS should audit every member of Congress. The people who write and approve the tax laws, above all others, should be living by them. And second, every person who is looking to go into a high - mid level position in the Obama Administration should be backing out now if their tax situation is not in order...This is an embarrassment to our President and it needs to stop. And third, ANYONE who is in an elected office, from City Councilman to Senator, across the country, should make sure they have paid all the taxes they owe...They have been placed in positions of trust, and if we can't trust them to have paid their fair share of taxes, how can we trust them, period?
I'm sick of politics being such a dirty business. It's almost like we expect it, so we tolerate it. I don't believe it has to be that way, but it will continue, as long as we allow it to.
Advertisement
There you go Stilli. Another hundred comments and many recs. So deserved.
What is a mother to do when the standards have been lowered to the point that the previous VP can say soooooo, when informed that the American people are against his policies 4 to 1?
Is there a constitutional requirement for actions performed by the Executive Branch?
Are there perimeters at all?
We just elect a dictator and that is the end of the discussion.
Good Post!!!!
February 3, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Arthur, but posts generally get the most comments when there is a controversy...There isn't much controversy here, I just needed to spout!
February 3, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but that is the beauty of it. Spout, there are trolls who will attack and then we shall make mince meat of them!!!!
February 3, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful on who gets tagged as such. The batting average around here hasn't been that great lately.
February 3, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not a troll Jason!!! Trolls hide under aquaducts and do not wish anyone to know their real identities.
At any rate, I saw Stilli's blog and knew you would arrive.
You are a good man.
February 3, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, dd, but if I can get tagged a "troll" by some fairly "popular" regulars for my normal commentary, then anyone can be so labeled no matter what they say.
February 3, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The IRS should audit every American and then maybe we would finally all rise up and admit that our tax code is convoluted. When you can take your taxes to five different professional, and get five different results. One will say you can deduct this and need to declare that while another says just the opposite. Folks we have systemic problem and it not with the folks making dumb mistakes on their taxes it is with an absurdly complex code.
Example have a a nanny will be prepared to spend upward of thirty hours filling out that paper work and tax forms plus associated accounting.
February 3, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is some truth to all you are saying foxey, but that's not the main point, here.
If Daschle gave the info to his accountant and the accountant told him he didn't need to pay taxes on it, that's a whole 'nuther thing. Anyone who took their tax preparer's advice and then later owes taxes, would not be avoiding taxes in my book. That is not the taxpayer's mistake, that is the preparer's mistake, and should not be held against the taxpayer. If Daschle told his accountant about the car and whatever else was involved, and he acted based on the preparer's advice, then he should be confirmed.
My understanding is that Daschle withheld that information. If that is not true, then then his appointment needs to be revisited.
As far as nannies go, if you can't afford 30 hours, or the financial ability to pay an accountant to do it for you, you can't afford a nanny...Not all of us can.
Should the tax code be simplified? Absolutely. Are the cases we've heard so much about lately the result of a complicated tax code? I'm not convinced.
February 3, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tax code is horribly complicated.
Reporting really obvious things (five-figure slot machine wins, the new car won on "The Price Is Right", the free loan of a car and driver for mostly personal use) is not.
Co-sign on the post.
February 3, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much seems like a no-brainer, huh? And we know that, shouldn't he? I mean he's the one w/ the 6 figure tax problem...
February 3, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may have just been spouting, but you did get me to thinkin'....which sometimes is dangerous. :o)
But, really, when did we decide, as a nation, to hold ourselves to a lower standard? Was there one great big moment when we collectively decided to just say , "Screw it!" Or was it a collection of small surrenders?
February 3, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was probably a series of little things...but somehow we've just allowed it to get out of control...someone we liked did it, so we made excuses, and before we knew it became commonplace...It's time to step up and demand better!
February 3, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Boyd said. We need to dramatically raise the bar before the 2010 primaries if we want to actually get something done in Washington.
February 3, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt Obama's standards are too high. Instead of appointing unconvicted felonious tax frauds, he should lower his standards and appoint freshly released convicts. Preferably those wearing ankle bracelets. Get those standards down there to normal democrat party levels. (notice how the dems are just dying to allow convicted felons the right to vote?)
February 3, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
They Republicans nominated Cheney, that escaped being indicted by the good faith and generosity of the American Public. Don't count on anymore of it. You lost. Bigtime.
You have a lot of nerve mentioning "criminal" in conjunction with "democrats," after the last 8 years. We should ship you all to New Orleans, and see how you do in mold ridden homes, and no services.
That rock you crawled out from under? It's sinking into the muck, and it needs you.
I can't think any worthy citizen does.
February 3, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its' because the Democrats are just as owned as the Republicans.
Listen to what was transpiring under Woodrow Wilson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph5MaR57fbY&feature=related
If you want Socialist change, VOTE SOCIALIST.
My candidate barely broke a bubble in 2008... but at least I didn't settle.
February 3, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not ignoring you, but I can't get get your link up just now...my service is squirrely at the moment...I'll come back and try again, I promise.
Good for you for voting your conscience...I voted mine, too! We just voted different! For the first time in a long time, I voted for someone I believe in, and it felt good...I didn't settle, either.
February 3, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stillidealistic, you are going the extra 100 miles to make me feel normal here. Thank you.
February 3, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that its 100 miles, but its so much easier to have a dialog when people are being nice. On this thread you are being nice! :-)
I really am hoping you will stick around! I don't think I've ever met a socialist before, and I'd sorta like to see what a socialist really thinks...
February 3, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try here: http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/
February 3, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wilson beat both Roosevelt AND Taft by accusing them of being a Socialists, even though Taft was what inspired Teddy to form the Progressive "Bull Moose" Party.
What was old can be new again and I think both parties better be aware that "moderates" or pragmatic progressives or true centrists or whatever you want to call us are the ones who elected Obama. If he isn't able to steer the team of DLC stooges he brought together, I will begin to believe that he wasn't ready to implement the ideas he has articulated or never had an intention of doing so.
Sad, but hardly unprecedented. Bill Clinton was the same way.
February 4, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I am a socialist, too, if by socialist you mean I believe in the benefits of society independent of ideology and governed by common sense. I know that isn't the definition you are working with, but it may explain where I am coming from.
Thomas Pains describes my idea of what being a socialist should mean in Common Sense:
We need to be willing to remove all ideological blinders prior to deciding out will address our many problems. I believe every political philosophy can provide bits and pieces of the ultimate tapestry of tactics and strategies which enable us to both succeed and have widespread ownership of the society we create.This isn't a one-size-fits-all time in history.
February 4, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree, but frankly, as others have pointed out, if the IRS audited everyone, all our taxes would likely be wrong. And then if they audited them again, the earlier returns would be wrong, once again.
What is ridiculous is our 1,000 pound tomes of IRS law, that even the IRS employees can't follow accurately.
When I hear that someone has a tax discrepancy, and say, "yeah? who doesn't."
As for socialism, respectfully, I am a socialist. I am not sure what the troll is, but I suspect it's anti-socialist. Otherwise, why would it go out of it's way to be so nasty?
I'll be happy to give you a reading list. Chomsky and Zinn are fine, although neither is what I'd call socialist. Zinn is an anarchist, and Chomsky? Well, he's a brilliant linguist.
Try maybe John Dos Passos. Primary sources always work best. Cyants knows all about dat. That said, I admire you, ma'am, for your open-mindedness. In this case, it's sorely misplaced, and I hate to see you be used as fodder against others that are far more worthy of your attention.
Aloha.
February 3, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is you didn't vote for Brian Moore in 2008, you are NOT a Socialist. No cheating!!!
And I'm not nasty. I ride a pink unicorn. PHFFFFFTP!
February 3, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are 2 schools of thought here. One is to vote a pure vote for what you believe in, knowing that your candidate doesn't have a snowball's chance in Los Angeles of getting elected. The other is, in a close race like this past one, to vote for "as close as you can get." So I would have to say that just because you didn't vote for the socialist candidate, doesn't mean you aren't a socialist, just that you REALLY didn't want McCain to win.
February 3, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know you were a socialist, chicken...! How did I not know that? I would be very interested in your reading suggestions.
As far as being used...I don't think so. Just want to be open to a variety of voices, assuming they can play nice. YIKES! didn't get off to a very good start, but I'd like to give him a chance to find his place here. I may be in the minority, but then again, I always have been!
February 3, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you wish stilli, I'll get to work on that for you.
Yep. I'm a bit to the left of Ghandi. Actually, you know a few socialists rather well, I'd say. Socialists aren't all loud and rude, or have a life story that runs along the lines of Che Guevara. (Although my dad was a Cuban Revolutionary. He was anti-Batista rather than pro-Castro, as were many. I expect you get the difference.)
February 3, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awwwww....no love for Fulgencio? :)
February 3, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst: Ghandi was a pacifist.
February 3, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
(pssst, the two aren't mutually exclusive.)
February 3, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psst: The point is you are belligerent.
February 4, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Psssst. The point is you're a pink unity pony and should love and embrace your avatar better.
Your avatar will love you for it.
It also helps if you give your avatar some sugar cubes.
Because then everyone else might love you and your avatar even more. And we all know that love counts for something.
February 4, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Play nice...
February 4, 2009 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am not. Do you understand the meaning of that word? You habitually misuse words, or accuse others here of your own poor behaviors. That's called projecting, in case you didn't know that, either.
While you're looking up belligerent, perhaps you could also look up socialist, pacifist, and constitution party.
Here is a hint, the latter is not something any of the former would approve of.
February 4, 2009 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Bwakfat, you called Zinn an anarchist and Chomsky a linguist. That a fairly liberal use of both words. I think too many of us live in glass houses around here and should drop the stones before walking away from escalating conflict.
February 4, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point Jason, is that neither are known to be socialists. Yes, Chomsky is a linguist, and that's hardly disputable. Zinn has an agenda, and mixes a bit too much agiprop in with his history. The point is, neither are poster boys for socialism. Or would you disagree with that?
It's a disservice to both to even describe them as such.
Why you bother defending this goon is beyond me, I'd think you'd have better things to do.
February 4, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say both certainly have socialist leanings, depending on what brand of socialism you prefer. Socialism, like liberalism and conservatism, is a term defined in a number of ways and given to a number of contexts.
Neither are quite so monolithic in their thinking as to be so easily dismissed as a mere anarchist or linguist. While I am not the biggest fan of Chomsky, I would hardly call Zinn an "agitprop" instigator rather than a historian. People's History is a pretty scathing, though honest, look at American history and can't be dismissed so easily either.
His speeches may contain a little of the "agitprop" in them, but I would hardly label him that way given a choice of thousands of other terms. The guy is certainly more King than Stalin.
February 4, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zinn isn't an anarchist.
He is a realist and believes we should order society on a more objective understanding of our history. He is a historian who was also a civil rights activist. He doesn't want to tear the government down as much as he wants America to become more equitable for more people.
I would say Zinn is much more Thomas Paine than Johnny Rotten.
February 4, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand you are a fan. As I said earlier, I tend to give primary sources a bit more weight. Zinn is certainly worth a read, as long as it is a critical read.
February 4, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a "fan" of Zinn? Hmmm. More dismissive language. I respect his work on human rights and for taking the time to write a more complete history of the US than anything I was ever taught in school.
That hardly makes me a fan. Go back over my last hundred comments and not a single one references Zinn unless someone else brought him up first.
I can certainly see a trend to your comments on Zinn, however, and his many "fans" on TPM. It is clear you aren't a "fan" and come to his writing (and his "fans") with preconceived notions. Hard to give an honest evaluation when the main goal is criticism.
February 4, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's standards should be high. And if that rules out 80% of the Old Guard, then so be it. New blood. When you look at the disaster unfolding, anyone who wasn't beating their desk to splinters in Congress this past 10-15 years clearly the insight, and ethics, to move us forward. Because we're going to look back on it as an age of appalling blindness, selfishness and corruption I'd say. The next months will see a trail of big names, from both parties and the private sector and beyond, getting nailed for their activities, and about the only thing that will slow that down is the fact that the media won't want THAT many ugly stories being told. Checking their taxes would be a good start, but there was lots of stuff that went on that never saw any kind of paperwork completed I suspect.
Sounds cynical, but like you say Stilli, we came not only to believe that politics was a dirty business, but to expect it. One that happens, it takes a long time to clean up.
February 3, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is how to get that new blood w/o having to wait for the old guard to die off. Unfortunately, with the way things are set up, it is very hard to get a new candidate in. The party backs the incumbent almost, if not ALL the time...making change difficult.
After living in VA for a year while my husband was on loan to the Feds, we re-visited Washington DC in about 1984/85 somewhere in there. We made an appointment to visit our Congressman, Gene Chappie. I remember clearly asking him if he could appoint himself ruler of the country could things be turned around, and he said no, the system is too far gone.
Looking back, I'm not sure what he meant, but it scared me then, and it scares me even more now...given that we're 20+ years down the road and I don't see anything getting better.
I'm not sure what a non-violent revolution would look like, but I know it is time to take our government back. I have put my faith in Obama. If he can't clean things up, I'm really, truly afraid it can't be done, at least not w/o a REAL revolution, the kind none of would want to see.
February 3, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twenty years ago the people were not that interested and the media was on 5 to 6 pm. It won't ever be perfect and Obama won't do it overnight. but it can be better. I think all congressmen should have their taxes checked every year. I am so glad Obama let Daschle go and then went on to TV to talk about it. I was at Pajama media looking at the Joe the plumber thing (first time and I won't go back) and was reading comments. According to them Obama has already failed, he only associates with criminals and so on. Do any republicans see the economic crisis that is rumbling down the road at us? Obama keeps saying the economy, the economy, the economy and republicans are picking nits. Jeeze.
February 4, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in agreement with quinn, stilli. And actually thought I had posted to this earlier. (but maybe only previewed... and forgot to "submit")
Time to do a lot of cleaning!
We cannot aim too high, say I.
February 4, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally second everything here. Paradigm shifts are only obvious in hindsight. There are going to be a lot of politicians falling on swords over the next few years as they try to keep their jobs while facing a newly energized electorate. The only way they win is if we go back to sleep. Don't see that happening anytime soon.
February 4, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It ought to rule out 100% of the old guard. The biggest problem we have is the incestuous and corrupt class that rules our government and it's agencies.
February 4, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Obama isn't part of the "old guard" is laughable.
Granted, he hasn't been around long enough to fairly be called "old" anything... but to suggest he's fundamentally different is naive.
February 4, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right loki, but I'm going to hold on to my hope that he isn't. If he is, I'm going to have to go back to not giving a crap, and I just can't do that yet.
February 4, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
February 4, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps auditing every registered lobbyist, CEO, CFO, and anyone else making over a million a year would be more revealing. The difference between members of Congres and everyone else is that at leat their holdings and finances are made public to some extent already. That could be made more specific, but most members of Congress are little fish compared to the huge number of lobbyists who make scads of money and then of course there's the indolent rich who do nothing but scheme over how to cheat the government and pay armies of accountants a fortune to do so. The wealthy and powerful love to complain about how long-suffering they are regarding taxes. I say, let's give me something to really complain about!
February 4, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree! The IRS spends a lot of time and manpower auditing little guys and coming up w/ a few bucks here and there. Audit just those making over a mil a year and you could shrink the size of the IRS and come up w/ a lot more money in the process.
February 4, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. They aren't too high. They just seem that way because we've become unaccustomed to any standards.
February 4, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup!
February 4, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink