Recent political events discussion kept, hopefully, civil

[minimetoo26]

As I hope to keep my job come Jan 20th, I'd also like to know which team I'm playing for. Otherwise, I have to assume it's for the President - albeit many, many, many times removed - and just keep trying to do my best.

Team USA. Country First. Go, team, go!

[MarleysGh0st]

I've no problem, as stated repeatedly, that Obama is picking former Clinton Administration officials for his team. I am surprised as those picks don't reflect, in my opinion, 'change.'

Experience vs. Change has been a campaign issue long before the 2008 election. So Obama is trying to be pragmatic. Can you really accomplish anything with an adminstration that has no experience in the various appointed positions?

As I posted earlier:

I asked for the military example to show that it is possible (taking into account particular individuals and circumstances) for a new commander to effect change with the help of experienced subordinates.

[silverscreenselect]

I was interested in the Obama supporters opinions on the picks as using former Clinton Administration officials does not seem to bolster the promise of change. Apparently, it's ok with the majority of those supporters who frequent the bored either due to a response on the topic or lack thereof, so I have an answer.

If you will recall, I never bought into Obama's claims of "change," and everything he has done from Hillary to Rick Warren, supports my view.

Since the election, Obama has been on overdrive attempting to dial back expectations, now talking about the economy going in the tank for years unless "something" is done soon. This is the same man who had all the answers three months ago, when he wasn't ridiculing John McCain.

The only change you can expect is the level of the rhetoric that's going to be forthcoming in future presidential speeches. If the Republicans are smart, as they were in the Blago/Burris mess, they should just sit back and let the train wreck occur on its own terms.

[Flybrick]

Clinton has never been SecState or been affiliated with such.

Daschle has never been HHS. Ditto

Panetta has never run or been affiliated with an intelligence organization.

So the answer is "yes," an Administration can be conducted with no previous experience in the appointed positions

The circle is ever-decreasing. I'd rather have a pragmatist over a complete idealist as the latter often don't accomplish much.

The election did seem to be won on idealism. Hence my original post.

[wbtravis007]

While I do want Obama to be a one-term wonder, I do want him to succeed in getting our nation back in a positive direction (so my wants are probably opposed to each other), however, I am interested to read the opinions of those who supported Mr. Obama regarding his choices for his executive team?

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

...

Changing gears: I wonder at the Caroline Kennedy Senate drama? I wonder, and here I acknowledge getting snippy, why no outcry over her lack of qualifications for the position? Bit of pot/kettle thing going, I think.

[and later]

I thought Biden the younger was being appointed to fill the vacancy?

You like to end statements with question marks?

[Rexer25]

While I do want Obama to be a one-term wonder, I do want him to succeed in getting our nation back in a positive direction (so my wants are probably opposed to each other), however, I am interested to read the opinions of those who supported Mr. Obama regarding his choices for his executive team?

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

...

Changing gears: I wonder at the Caroline Kennedy Senate drama? I wonder, and here I acknowledge getting snippy, why no outcry over her lack of qualifications for the position? Bit of pot/kettle thing going, I think.

[and later]

I thought Biden the younger was being appointed to fill the vacancy?

You like to end statements with question marks?

Skipster!! Where ya bin?

[Flybrick]

You like to end statements with question marks?

Only the interrogative ones.

But that's just me.

I see you're looking to ignore the civil part of the thread.

[wbtravis007]

While I do want Obama to be a one-term wonder, I do want him to succeed in getting our nation back in a positive direction (so my wants are probably opposed to each other), however, I am interested to read the opinions of those who supported Mr. Obama regarding his choices for his executive team?

I am very surprised by the number of Clinton re-treads. I am curious if this is what you thought he'd do and/or if you think it's a good idea?

...

Changing gears: I wonder at the Caroline Kennedy Senate drama? I wonder, and here I acknowledge getting snippy, why no outcry over her lack of qualifications for the position? Bit of pot/kettle thing going, I think.

[and later]

I thought Biden the younger was being appointed to fill the vacancy?

You like to end statements with question marks?

Skipster!! Where ya bin?

Somebody told me awhile back that that you could see naked ladies and stuff on the internet. Bet y'all Mr. and Mrs. Know-it-alls didn't know that!

[wbtravis007]

You like to end statements with question marks?

Only the interrogative ones.

But that's just me.

I see you're looking to ignore the civil part of the thread.

I was too busy reading the thread hopefully.

[wbtravis007]

You like to end statements with question marks?

Only the interrogative ones.

But that's just me.

I see you're looking to ignore the civil part of the thread.

I wasn't asking a question. I was expressing an opinion.

[littlebeast13]

You like to end statements with question marks?

Skipster!! Where ya bin?

Somebody told me awhile back that that you could see naked ladies and stuff on the internet. Bet y'all Mr. and Mrs. Know-it-alls didn't know that!

Skippy and wintergreen both return to the Bored after long layoffs on the same day..........

Hmmmmmmmm.........

lb13

[Jeemie]

Somebody told me awhile back that that you could see naked ladies and stuff on the internet. Bet y'all Mr. and Mrs. Know-it-alls didn't know that!

That's the entire purpose of the Internet- to give us the ability to download high-quality pictures of naked women really fast.

I think it was in the original charter...

[earendel]

You like to end statements with question marks?

Only the interrogative ones.

But that's just me.

I see you're looking to ignore the civil part of the thread.

I was too busy reading the thread hopefully.

You were reading the thread with hope? I hope those hopes weren't dashed.

[Flybrick]

Taxes?! What taxes?

At issue is Geithner's failure to pay appropriate Social Security and Medicare taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund between 2001 and 2003. He had paid some of the back taxes in 2006 after the IRS sent him a bill. When the Obama transition team discovered he owed even more back taxes, Geithner paid those additional taxes days before Obama announced his choice in November, according to the Senate Finance Committee considering his nomination.

I believe Geithner should still be approved by the Senate, and think the Senate will, by a large majority, do so.

But that's two nominees with 'baggage' that the incoming Administration has bungled.

Tell me again about 'change?'

Don't mistake my intent. Obama is very shortly to be my President. I wish him well and hope he succeeds in safeguarding America and helping move the economy towards a recovery (I don't think ANY President can make or break the economy by himself), but he's just another professional politician. The hype has been/is too much.

[gsabc]

Taxes?! What taxes?

At issue is Geithner's failure to pay appropriate Social Security and Medicare taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund between 2001 and 2003. He had paid some of the back taxes in 2006 after the IRS sent him a bill. When the Obama transition team discovered he owed even more back taxes, Geithner paid those additional taxes days before Obama announced his choice in November, according to the Senate Finance Committee considering his nomination.

I believe Geithner should still be approved by the Senate, and think the Senate will, by a large majority, do so.

But that's two nominees with 'baggage' that the incoming Administration has bungled.

Tell me again about 'change?'

Don't mistake my intent. Obama is very shortly to be my President. I wish him well and hope he succeeds in safeguarding America and helping move the economy towards a recovery (I don't think ANY President can make or break the economy by himself), but he's just another professional politician. The hype has been/is too much.

My own belief is that no matter who won last November, they'd end up a one-term President because of the huge expectations for a quick fix of the multiple legacy problems handed off to him. Neither candidate would have been able to deliver that. (Note: and no matter which candidate won, I would still hope that I was wrong about the delivery issue.)

[Bob78164]

But that's two nominees with 'baggage' that the incoming Administration has bungled.

I don't think it's fair to characterize Geithner's nomination as "bungled." The transition team learned about the issue, fixed it, promptly disclosed it (in December) to the Finance Committee, and had the public response in the can when the news hit.

It seems to me that's precisely the right way to handle "baggage." It gives me more, not less, confidence in the nuts-and-bolts competence of the incoming Administration. --Bob

[Flybrick]

I don't think it's fair to characterize Geithner's nomination as "bungled." The transition team learned about the issue, fixed it, promptly disclosed it (in December) to the Finance Committee, and had the public response in the can when the news hit.

It seems to me that's precisely the right way to handle "baggage." It gives me more, not less, confidence in the nuts-and-bolts competence of the incoming Administration. --Bob

We see it differently. I believe the Obama team should have announced this at the time, then it is them revealing all vs. it leaked by the Committee.

Would you give the same reasoning if this had been a McCain nominee? Or a Bush one sometime during his Administration? Or would it have been a "See? See?"

Which, admittedly, is what I'm doing.

[mrkelley23]

If Geitner's story is true, and he can produce a written statement from his tax-preparer for those two years saying he did not owe the employment tax, then okay. Otherwise, troubling.

SecTreas should not be a guy who does, or even feel like he has to, cheat on his taxes

[Bob78164]

If Geitner's story is true, and he can produce a written statement from his tax-preparer for those two years saying he did not owe the employment tax, then okay. Otherwise, troubling.

SecTreas should not be a guy who does, or even feel like he has to, cheat on his taxes

As I understand it, his story is that there are four years at issue. The first two years, he did his own taxes. The second two years, an accountant assisted him. No one has suggested that he did this deliberately.

The issue is a little complex. Apparently, he was subject to a weird tax treatment as an employee of the IMF. He was getting W-2s, just like an employee, and "ordinary" income tax was withheld, again just like an employee. On the other hand, he was responsible for paying FICA (social security and Medicare) taxes, and (unlike an employee) none of those were withheld from his paycheck, so he was supposed to pay them as self-employment taxes. That's what he missed. Contributing to the problem, apparently U.S. employees of the IMF have their income "grossed up" to compensate for income taxes, but this process does not compensate employees for FICA. In other words, it's a natural (and common assumption to make that the additional money that's intended for taxes takes care of all of the federal taxes, when in fact it leaves out FICA.

If you're truly an employee but the employer fails to withhold the employer's share of FICA taxes, then under the law, it's the employer's problem, not yours. Apparently, though, that's not the case for IMF employees. I've now seen multiple sources say that Geithner's mistake is quite common among U.S. employees of the IMF. That's probably why the IRS didn't charge him any penalty (just interest). --Bob

[Flybrick]

The IMF sends out all kinds of notices/reminders/e-mails to it's US employees regarding the squirrelly tax situation of working there.

From folks who have worked there, this should not have been a surprise to him.

Whether it's a simple mistake and/or bad accounting advice remains to be seen.

Regardless, some bad press and not really change.

[mrkelley23]

Just from my own personal point of view, I voted for Mr. Obama because he represented the choice who was least like our current President, which is at least a little different that voting for hope and change.

BiT has been on record as regretting that so many people were voting not-Bush this time, but I feel like I've been doing it my whole life. I've never voted for anyone named Bush, and my reasons are well-known, so I won't rehash them here.

Because of that, I'm actually happy with most of the decisions Mr. Obama has made. Retreads and old hands are much, much preferable as agents of change, counterintuitively I suppose, to those of us who are old enough to remember Mr. Carter and his approach to reform and change.

I'm probably in the minority, but I will be satisfied if Mr. Obama can get us mostly out of Iraq, mostly out of the recession, and mostly back to fiscal sanity as regards budget by the year 2011. I hold the least hope for #3, because I believe he has outsized plans for what the federal government is able to achieve, and if he can, he will try to pass those kinds of programs. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush and the faux-fiscal-conservatives in the Republican party have mostly handed him the means and opportunity to do an unprecedented expansion of the federal government.