Obama speaks out against tax cheats

Since I posted the video of Schock’s reaction to Obama’s new tax policy, I thought it might be sporting to post the President’s announcement of his tax policy to kind of put things in perspective. Here’s what I found on the White House’s website:

What immediately made me laugh — not so much in amusement, but rather in disgust — was the fact that Tim “Tax Cheat” Geithner was introducing the whole thing. How can that guy stand up there and talk about tax cheats and not immediately get struck by lightning? Then Obama says this:

Nobody likes paying taxes, particularly in times of economic stress. But most Americans meet their responsibilities because they understand that it’s an obligation of citizenship, necessary to pay the costs of our common defense and our mutual well-being. And yet, even as most American citizens and businesses meet these responsibilities, there are others who are shirking theirs.

Yes, there certainly are. One of them is standing about five feet to your immediate right, Mr. President! Wow. It just doesn’t get any more hypocritical than that.

My dad, whenever he sees Geithner’s picture in the paper, immediately writes “TAX CHEAT” across Geithner’s forehead. I think that ought to be the standard in all newspapers and news reports across the country. I’m instituting it here at the Chronicle.

timothy_geithner_reuters_tax-cheat

One more thing: I found this funny little parody of “Tax Man” by the Beatles on You Tube. It’s called “Tax Cheat (Tim Geithner Song)”:

62 thoughts on “Obama speaks out against tax cheats”

  1. NV: you can spin owl droppings into golden thread – you must be congratulated for that skill.

    The new standard that EM placed into the community is tempered by his partisan glasses that he gazes upon our lowly stations in life.

    I believe he ment by his statements that unless you have hard evidence, no person shall suffer from bad copy or bad media coverage.

    In other words show me the video of the individual doing the questionable act, otherwise stay home.

  2. I simply meant: You are innocent in this country until you are proved guilty. PC, I know this concept is hard to swallow for a true Right winged person such as your self. Yes I am partisan and you’re not? Please! That is what I meant. Hell, if a person wants to know what is happening all one has to do is check out the local Peoria blogs which are rich in info and fair treatment of any opinion not just the big bad media. So, people will see Geithner as a tax cheat. Some people see Obama as a Muslim. Some even question his US birth. Some people have seen 40 UFOs in formation. Maybe you, PC, should stay at home.

    Cubs: World’s biggest losers

    Dems: World’s Biggest losers (Watch and see, we have a good thing going and somehow, they will screw it up and the Republicans will be back. It’s like the Cubs scoring 21 runs in a game…..and still losing.)

  3. I did not see a UFO but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express some time in the past.

    Never claimed to be non partisan. But I do not reside on the far right of the political spectrum. Good ideas and solutions to problems are on all sides of the spectrum.

    When majority factions impose government as the be all end all, I can not let that pass without a serious examination of the issues.

  4. Indeed. I also stayed at a Holiday Inn. I am Democrat but I do not consider myself far left. Your statement PC: “When majority factions impose government as the be all end all, I can not let that pass without a serious examination of the issues.” which I assume means that as long as the Dems are the majority you will be examining.

    That applies to me when the Republicans were the majority and imposed government as the be all end all.

  5. I realize this is a technicality… or is it?

    You are PRESUMED not guilty until proven guilty. That presumption applies ONLY to a person’s legal rights and the legal processes that can be used against them. There is no such thing as innocence in our court system. You are either guilty or not guilty.

  6. PC: “When majority factions impose government as the be all end all, I can not let that pass without a serious examination of the issues.”

    When majority factions suggest the economy is the end all and be all, I can not let that pass without a serious examination of the issues.

    We need to come to the understanding that people are worthless and meaningless in our society… all that matters is MONEY. It is our first concern in the morning and our last worry at night. It is our we measure the worth of everything… time, social status, our clothing, food, homes, leisure time, friends, lovers, ourselves… We live in a money addicted society.

    I would rather have a government of the people running society than a banking and futures investment system run by a few elite oligarchs.

  7. Diane: You take it on the chin pretty good, I respect that; but it doesn’t change the facts kiddo!

  8. Em, your cubs analogy lacks a historical perspective. Yes in recent years the Dems have been the losing party but if you look at a much longer time horizon that isn’t the case. Look at how long the democratic party controlled congress until the 1994 mid term elections.

  9. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.” –Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73

    So if one party wants decisions made at an international banking consortium or even some corporate elite level and others want decisions made from a government elected and represented by the people… which one would Jefferson support?

    let’s see… which ones supports more government power and which one supports more power to the corporations?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.