Senate voting results for Geithner confirmation

A bank will not hire a teller who has had multiple overdrafts...accidental or not.

How much more should the person in charge of our country's finances be able to show fiscal responsibility?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt (although I have my doubts here) and call the trangsression purely accidental.

This should still disqualify anyone from the position Geithner is nominated for.

But then again...with the idiots we have spending other people's money like crazy...irresponsibility is a coveted character trait for them.

 

So it's only cheating if you are charged and convicted?

I always thought that cheating on your taxes was knowingly not complying with the tax regulations.

When he was audited in 2006 he learned of his "mistake" and chose not to amend the prior years that were not audited.

At that point he knowingly did not comply with the tax regulations and became a tax cheat.

He admits that he did this. He simply says that he decided not to pay the taxes and simply put it out of his mind after the audit in 2006. When he was nominated by Obama he voluntarily amended those prior year returns because he knew that he was a tax cheat.

 

Did you know that an income tax preparer who is behind on filing their personal tax returns is not allowed by the IRS to efile for their customers?

Why are we less harsh with the guy who will be responsible for the whole Treasury?

 

It's a de facto admission of an oversight.

 

Ten Republicans Vote to Confirm Geithner, Four Liberals Vote No

...........Three Democrats and one independent voted against Geithner's confirmation, including Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the longest-serving senator in history.

"Had he not been nominated for treasury secretary, it's doubtful that he would have ever paid these taxes," Byrd said in a statement.

For the prevailing majority, the real reason for Geithner's likely confirmation appears to be less a matter of bipartisan cooperation than political survival. Lawmakers of all stripes are eager to set the economy in the right direction long before voters judge their progress in the 2010 midterm elections............


More Here

 

Which is still guilt. Quit excusing the inexcusable. You know as well as we all do that this guy should not be confirmed. If Bush made this appointment, you would all up in arms about it and complaining about incompetency. But because it's Obama you give him a free pass.

 

1) Nope.

2) I wanted Geithner confirmed. I have already stated that. I am not on your side on this confirmation, Pastor Larry. Period.

 

I don't know much about Geithner, but I figure he can do no worse than Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson.

 

Finally, Senator Byrd listened to the people in WV and voted Nay...

If only Rockefeller would listen to his constituents.

 

So...having a secretary of the treasury that can't control his personal finances doesn't bother you?

It's sad when partisan politics clouds one's judgement. You so much desire liberal leadership you're willing to overlook a candidate that doesn't display basic qualifications. Sad.

 

On that we agree wholeheartedly. That may have been Bush's worst lapse in judgement during his entire presidency.

 

When you don't do something you are supposed to do, you are guilty. Guilt, by definition is "the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp. against moral or penal law; culpability: He admitted his guilt."

Some of the things you say are certainly debatable. This is not. You are clearly wrong, by definition.

Whether or not you are on my side is irrelevant. The fact is that you are wrong. You are supporting a guy to handle the money of this country who couldn't even handle his own money. What are you thinking? For all the complaints about the people who blindly followed Bush and defended everything he did, you are worse. And this is not even a significant issue. This is one about which there should be no debate. If Bush had made this nomination, you would have been howling. As it is, we see that you are simply a partisan hack.

 

Did the guy not sign his tax return under "penalty of perjury?" Oh, that's right, Clinton showed us perjury means nothing.....:sleep:

 

Merged 2 threads and flubbed it - sorry Rev. M, yours was the earliest post. Please accept my apology.

LE

 

I think that the name of this charater is:Ala Babi (Not sure)
Ala Babi was a fortunate man indeed, he only had forth thieves to deal with.

 

Our side won. Your side lost. Get used to it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Actually, we are all losing. But this type of arrogance is what Obama showed in his very immature response to Republican concerns. Remember, this is a guy who promised to govern from the center and pursue bipartisanship. A week into this, he has been a colossal failure.

He has shown disregard for the economy. He has shown gross disregard from human life. He has demonstrated arrogance. He has broken campaign commitments and gone back on things he said in his first days in office.

Overall, this is not good for anyone, you included Ken. Your side (at least your current side until you pull a Romney again) won an election. But you are doing great damage to our country. And the country is far more important.

You are supporting an uethical, arrogant, lying politician. You opposed the previous one. Why support this one?

 

Yep, Ken, because your side won, we all lose, including the unborn. God will judge this arrogance. He says He will have no other gods before Him and He will avenge the innocent and helpless. One day, even the most arrogant, will bend the knee and proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord of ALL.

 

So you are calling former President Bush an unethical, arrogant, lying politician?