• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

36 Obama Aides Owe $833,000 In Back Taxes

Greta had a great segment about all the money staffers and other who work for the feds owe in taxes. I could not find the video but here is an article about how they love to dodge taxes in DC.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/24/hundreds-capitol-hill-staffers-didnt-pay-taxes-in-2010/

Here is a highlight to get anyone who pays thier taxes blood boiling.

"More than 98,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their taxes in 2010, adding up to more than $1 billion in taxes owed, according to the IRS."
 
Sorry, it only really matters if they're Republicans. Since the staffers are Democrats it really isn't of any interest. You're also a horrible partisan bigot and racist to boot because you brought it up.
 
They all should be required to pay their back taxes immediately. But 7 percent of his aides in an obiviously government wide issue does not warrent this being a "Fair Share" Obama issue.
 
monovillage said:
Sorry, it only really matters if they're Republicans. Since the staffers are Democrats it really isn't of any interest. You're also a horrible partisan bigot and racist to boot because you brought it up.
Click to expand...

Your victim act is really old and tired.

With that said, these clowns need to pay up *now* - what a load of crap that this admin tells us we all need to pay our fair share while not paying their own taxes. Do I as I say, not as I do?
 
And they should pay what they owe, I am not sure where the story is here. There are lots of people who have back taxes they need to pay and they should pay them. This isn't a R/D issue.
 
Here's what I don't understand about this:

Once you take a job in a government position where what you do, or not do, is going to make the national spotlight, wouldn't you naturally, without any type of orders or directives, make it your business to not do things that are going to cause embarrassment to those above you/your deptarment? Wouldn't that be like 'water is wet' type of common sense?

And, on the other side of that, wouldn't an admin/Admin, knowing they are going to be called out for things like this, make absolutely sure directives are going out to All under them, making sure that hot button issues like this, which will be used against them, are mitigated ahead of time????

Just sorta unreal that given both of those things, there still is stuff like this occurring...
 
Nice OP article. The author cherry picks and tells us what statistics he wants us to see and omits those he doesn't want us to see. For example, we are told that Obama has a larger staff than Bush's staff in his last year. But we aren't told that Obama's staff owes less in back taxes, not more, than Bush's staff did. Why were we given the first piece of information and not the second? I think the answer to that is obvious.
 
chucky2 said:
Because Bush isn't POTUS nor running for re-election?
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is crap. Why were we told that Obama's staff is larger than Bush's? If Bush isn't relevant here, why did the author of the article bring him up to make one statistical comparison but avoid another? I didn't bring Bush into this. The author did.
 
I could care less who brought Bush into it. It's meaningless. What's meaningful here is that anyone collecting the salaries and perks that everyone working in Washington are receiving owe anything in back taxes. If this is multitudes of poor b@stard secretaries making $30k a year and having to owe back taxes because they couldn't pay, then this will be a hit piece article. Somehow I feel safe assuming that's not the case here...
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Pay up or get out.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But most people who "owe back taxes" couldn't pay them all on April 15 and are on a structured payment plan with the IRS. My wife and I had to do that one year. If you're on a payment plan, and have made all your monthly payments on time, you still "owe back taxes." Owing back taxes is used in this context to imply impropriety, but impropriety isn't the usual case.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Your reading comprehension is crap. Why were we told that Obama's staff is larger than Bush's? If Bush isn't relevant here, why did the author of the article bring him up to make one statistical comparison but avoid another? I didn't bring Bush into this. The author did.
Click to expand...

It's an op-ed from a right wing newspaper. I'm not entirely shocked that they would be selective in their statistics.
 
chucky2 said:
I could care less who brought Bush into it. It's meaningless. What's meaningful here is that anyone collecting the salaries and perks that everyone working in Washington are receiving owe anything in back taxes. If this is multitudes of poor b@stard secretaries making $30k a year and having to owe back taxes because they couldn't pay, then this will be a hit piece article. Somehow I feel safe assuming that's not the case here...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought it was meaningful that the author of the OP's article is a liar. And frankly, I'm getting tired of biased crap being linked on this board, and when someone points it out, we're told that it isn't the issue. If you don't want the OP's honesty questioned, then honest sources should be used.

Also, you either have no idea what "owing back taxes" actually means, or you yourself are dishonestly pretending not to. In the vast majority of cases, the person is doing nothing wrong.

- wolf
 
eskimospy said:
It's an op-ed from a right wing newspaper. I'm not entirely shocked that they would be selective in their statistics.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be, but I'm correct to point it out. And I'm going to keep pointing it out, every time they link another one of these garbage pieces of faux journalism. And it isn't only the selective use of statistics. The entire issue isn't even what they're claiming it is.
 
woolfe9999 said:
You shouldn't be, but I'm correct to point it out. And I'm going to keep pointing it out, every time they link another one of these garbage pieces of faux journalism. And it isn't only the selective use of statistics. The entire issue isn't even what they're claiming it is.
Click to expand...

I agree. I really wish people would stop quoting op-eds almost entirely. There are a few rare occasions where they provide some really interesting points/insight, but the vast majority of the time they are pieces of shit like this that not only fail to inform the debate, but actively decrease our level of knowledge.
 
I guess it's simple to me: You make money, you owe taxes. You make lots of money, you owe lots of taxes. I don't understand how people, knowing they are going to owe come April 15th, cannot budget ahead of time to cover what they owe. If the article author is a liar, then he's/she's a liar, I could care less. All I care about is the people (and the people under them helping them deliver their demands) asking us to give more as they spend morer (yes, I made up a word), actually pay what they owe when they owe it. I don't think that's too much to ask, since, it's expected of us common folk.

When you say doing nothing wrong, do you mean doing nothing they shouldn't be doing in the spirit of income and taxes, or, doing nothing wrong based on the letter of the law? Those can be two radically different things, I'd like to know which.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Absolutely. But most people who "owe back taxes" couldn't pay them all on April 15 and are on a structured payment plan with the IRS. My wife and I had to do that one year. If you're on a payment plan, and have made all your monthly payments on time, you still "owe back taxes." Owing back taxes is used in this context to imply impropriety, but impropriety isn't the usual case.

- wolf
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that anyone be ruined and I expect them to be treated the same as anyone else. A payment plan makes perfect sense. It just needs to be done and while everyone should pay their due it seems especially important for those who have the public trust to do so. Party is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top