Another Obama Nominee Has Tax Issues

[SmarterthanYou]

Please. That's nonsense.

What is it then, if not imcompetence?

1) You have no basis to say that she knew that they were filled out incorrectly. As a matter of course the Senate asks nominees for three years of tax returns and, as a matter of course, the nominees review their prior three years of tax returns with an accountant to make sure that everything is squeaky clean. That's why these issues arise when they do. I mean, if you aren't audited do you review your prior tax returns to make sure every single thing is on the up and up?

No, as commoners, we have to audit our returns before we send them in because if they are incorrect and then we are audited, we get fines and penalties that cross the line of usury.

 

[Bonestorm]

What is it then, if not imcompetence?

No, as commoners, we have to audit our returns before we send them in because if they are incorrect and then we are audited, we get fines and penalties that cross the line of usury.

1) I guess she is incompetent at filling out her tax return but that's about it. It says nothing about her abilities to serve in the position for which she was nominated. I suppose you could ignore her 7 years as governor of Kansas, 8 years as insurance commissioner of Kansas prior to that and 8 years in the Kansas State House but it seems pretty silly to me.

2) Do you have any indication that Sebelius was treated differently from "commoners?" Do you know anyone that voluntarily reviewed their prior tax returns with an accountant to make sure every singly thing was on the up and up and self-reported any errors or omissions?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) I guess she is incompetent at filling out her tax return but that's about it. It says nothing about her abilities to serve in the position for which she was nominated. I suppose you could ignore her 7 years as governor of Kansas, 8 years as insurance commissioner of Kansas prior to that and 8 years in the Kansas State House but it seems pretty silly to me.

so simple mistakes in a persons personal life has no bearing on how they would do a public service job. Do I have your position correctly?

2) Do you have any indication that Sebelius was treated differently from "commoners?" Do you know anyone that voluntarily reviewed their prior tax returns with an accountant to make sure every singly thing was on the up and up and self-reported any errors or omissions?

I voluntarily review my tax returns with an accountant before I send them in. It's worth the cost to make sure an error doesn't come back to bite me in the ass.

 

[Bonestorm]

so simple mistakes in a persons personal life has no bearing on how they would do a public service job. Do I have your position correctly?



I voluntarily review my tax returns with an accountant before I send them in. It's worth the cost to make sure an error doesn't come back to bite me in the ass.

1) No. You don't. It's not an either or proposition. I'm merely point out that shouts of "incompetence" based on this one issue are silly when weighed against her career in public service.

2) She took a different view. And it has come back to bite her in the ass.


I understand why people are upset about it. I just don't believe the hype about her alleged "incompetence" and don't think this should derail her nomination.

 

[Damocles]

1) You have no basis to say that she knew that they were filled out incorrectly. As a matter of course the Senate asks nominees for three years of tax returns and, as a matter of course, the nominees review their prior three years of tax returns with an accountant to make sure that everything is squeaky clean. That's why these issues arise when they do. I mean, if you aren't audited do you review your prior tax returns to make sure every single thing is on the up and up?

2) Claiming that this is an error in vetting is equally nonsensical. Obviously, the Obama people knew about this. It wasn't discovered by the Senate. It was discovered by the nominee and reported to the Senate by the nominee who would obviously have Obama in the loop. The issue is whether these problems are deemed sufficient to derail a qualified nominee for the job. Obama says no and presses ahead with the nominations notwithstanding the tax issues. And in this case the Senate will end up confirming her.

1. Other than my opinion which was signified by the part that said it was my opinion. The last second fix of your taxes just as you are nominated is the norm for this Administration.

I base it on past experience. The desperate fix it when you have to measures.

2. No, I think that if they had vetted this (as their clear experience tells them they should) they wouldn't have nominated her until after the taxes were fixed. Taking a quick accountant's look at taxes isn't that hard to do while vetting, and if they refuse you don't nominate so that you can clean up this particular vexing issue with your nominees.

 

[Bonestorm]

1. Other than my opinion which was signified by the part that said it was my opinion. The last second fix of your taxes just as you are nominated is the norm for this Administration.

I base it on past experience. The desperate fix it when you have to measures.

2. No, I think that if they had vetted this (as their clear experience tells them they should) they wouldn't have nominated her until after the taxes were fixed. Taking a quick accountant's look at taxes isn't that hard to do while vetting, and if they refuse you don't nominate so that you can clean up this particular vexing issue with your nominees.

Basically you are saying that if they had vetted her they wouldn't have nominated her until 2012.

I'm not trying to change your mid here, but your position isn't at all reasonable.

 

[tinfoil]

So the liberal morons here still can't wrap their puny minds around the problem.

You can't take deductions for things you don't own. It's fraud, It's not a mistake.

 

[Damocles]

Basically you are saying that if they had vetted her they wouldn't have nominated her until 2012.

I'm not trying to change your mid here, but your position isn't at all reasonable.

Again, my "position" is simply "wonder" at why they don't vet this from the beginning, it shows a level of incompetence in the administration that you try to say belongs to a different administration.

My "position" is basically that I am surprised at how incompetent they seem to want to appear by not checking this particular vexing issue for this administration before they nominate people.

My actual "position" (as shown by the part where it said it was my opinion) is that she is at the least incompetent as shown by the inability to fill out tax forms properly, and at the most directly dishonest as shown by the attempt to cover the problems, excuse and dismiss them.

I believe that if this were a Bush nominee, after several had the same problem before, you would be screaming about the incompetence of the administration. And IMO you would be right.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, my "position" is simply "wonder" at why they don't vet this from the beginning, it shows a level of incompetence in the administration that you try to say belongs to a different administration.

My "position" is basically that I am surprised at how incompetent they seem to want to appear by not checking this particular vexing issue for this administration before they nominate people.

My actual "position" is that she is at the least incompetent as shown by the inability to fill out tax forms properly, and at the most directly dishonest as shown by the attempt to cover the problems, excuse and dismiss them.

I believe that if this were a Bush nominee, after several had the same problem before, you would be screaming about the incompetence of the administration. And IMO you would be right.

1) I just don't understand why you assume they didn't know about the tax issues. The more than likely scenario is that they knew about it but didn't deem it sufficient to keep her from being nominated. These are not issues that were discovered by the Senate. They were self-reported.

2) I also don't understand why you claim that they attempted to cover the problem. The nominee self-reported the issues to the IRS and the Senate. Where's the cover-up?


In my view you want to ignore the most likely scenario (lot of that with you lately) in an effort to convince yourself of what you want to be true.

 

[Damocles]

1) I just don't understand why you assume they didn't know about the tax issues. The more than likely scenario is that they knew about it but didn't deem it sufficient to keep her from being nominated. These are not issues that were discovered by the Senate. They were self-reported.

2) I also don't understand why you claim that they attempted to cover the problem. The nominee self-reported the issues to the IRS and the Senate. Where's the cover-up?


In my view you want to ignore the most likely scenario (lot of that with you lately) in an effort to convince yourself of what you want to be true.

1.) I assume they didn't know because it has been a repetitive and vexing issue. Appearance is clearly important to this Administration, except on this one issue. It makes them look like fools.

2.) I think she attempted to "fix" it only when she knew it would be an issue and then attempted to dismiss the obvious by pretending it is of no consequence because it was "only" about this.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse as to what my "position" is because it is far easier to "fight" straw men.

 

[leaningright]

 

[Bonestorm]

1.) I assume they didn't know because it has been a repetitive and vexing issue. Appearance is clearly important to this Administration, except on this one issue. It makes them look like fools.

2.) I think she attempted to "fix" it only when she knew it would be an issue and then attempted to dismiss the obvious by pretending it is of no consequence because it was "only" about this.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse as to what my "position" is because it is far easier to "fight" straw men.

I understand your position. I just think it makes no sense.

Sebelius didn't have to submit anything to the Senate and the nomination could have been pulled once the tax issues arose. That the administration pushed ahead nevertheless is an obvious indication that they weren't concerned that it would stop the nomination. Again, it's not something that the Senate discovered but was something that Sebelius self-reported.

And saying that she attempted to fix it only when she knew it would be an issue assumes that she knew about it previous to her review of tax records required by the Senate.

 

[tinfoil]

I understand your position. I just think it makes no sense.

Sebelius didn't have to submit anything to the Senate and the nomination could have been pulled once the tax issues arose. That the administration pushed ahead nevertheless is an obvious indication that they weren't concerned that it would stop the nomination. Again, it's not something that the Senate discovered but was something that Sebelius self-reported.

And saying that she attempted to fix it only when she knew it would be an issue assumes that she knew about it previous to her review of tax records required by the Senate.

She did know. that's why she had her records scrubbed.
Any moron knows you can't take deductions for a mortgage on a home you already sold. You must be a fucking moron to believe this bullshit excuse that it was a mistake. Ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to tax fraud.

 

[Damocles]

I understand your position. I just think it makes no sense.

Sebelius didn't have to submit anything to the Senate and the nomination could have been pulled once the tax issues arose. That the administration pushed ahead nevertheless is an obvious indication that they weren't concerned that it would stop the nomination. Again, it's not something that the Senate discovered but was something that Sebelius self-reported.

And saying that she attempted to fix it only when she knew it would be an issue assumes that she knew about it previous to her review of tax records required by the Senate.

I don't believe that you do. But this is a constant nowadays.

You first assume something that I never said and then argue against that assumption while I spend an inordinate amount of time repeating what I said.

I personally believe that Sibelius is either of two things:

1. Incompetent.

or

2. Dishonest.

It is my opinion that she knew about the discrepancies and only corrected them when it became time to have them scrutinized and that she is dishonest in this manner. This opinion is based on the constant "oops I'll fix it now" that happens with Obama nominees and her assumption that dismissing its importance by attempting to stress how it was "only" about this and this....

Pretending that they knew that yet again they'd have egg on their face about taxes and yet pressed on regardless is pretense and based only on what you want to believe to be true. It's a sign of people who cannot learn from past mistakes and will press on even when shown that they may have made a mistake.

 

[tinfoil]

How can you believe someone would think they could take a deduction on a mortgage for a house they sold and took a loss on?

 

[Bonestorm]

I don't believe that you do. But this is a constant nowadays.

You first assume something that I never said and then argue against that assumption while I spend an inordinate amount of time repeating what I said.

I personally believe that Sibelius is either of two things:

1. Incompetent.

or

2. Dishonest.

It is my opinion that she knew about the discrepancies and only corrected them when it became time to have them scrutinized and that she is dishonest in this manner. This opinion is based on the constant "oops I'll fix it now" that happens with Obama nominees and her assumption that dismissing its importance by attempting to stress how it was "only" about this and this....

Pretending that they knew that yet again they'd have egg on their face about taxes and yet pressed on regardless is pretense and based only on what you want to believe to be true. It's a sign of people who cannot learn from past mistakes and will press on even when shown that they may have made a mistake.

1) Nominees do the "oops, I'll fix it now" because the issues only come to light upon scrutiny of their previous three years of tax returns that the Senate Finance Committee requires the nominees to submit to the committee.

2) I'm not pretending anything. You want to pretend that this is some huge deal that will prevent Sebelius from being confirmed; that it is a "mistake." It isn't and the Obama team knows it isn't. That's why they pressed on anyway. If they thought it was a deal breaker the nomination would have been withdraw prior to Sebelius submitting her tax records to the Finance Committee.

I'd also add that saying she is incompetent because she made a mistake in filling out her tax return without making any assessment of her 25 years of public service is just plain stupid.

 

[tinfoil]

It's obvious Dungheap is willfully ignoring the fact that it's impossible to make this "mistake".
That's like saying a bank robber made a mistake getting a withdrawl.
She took a deduction for a home that was already sold and no longer belonged to her. For more than one year also. Repeated the fraud.

You or I would be in big trouble over this.

 

[tinfoil]

the tax laws are clear. Even an idiot understands what ownership means

 

[tinfoil]

Well, I'm not alone in being bothered by this. I guess it's just the partisan morons who don't care about it.

http://news.aol.com/article/kathleen-sebelius-tax-errors/407682

 

[Onceler]

Personally, I'm just glad you found a new obsession to replace global warming...