Rangel omitted financial data for 30 years

[smelter]

According to a report by the Sunlight Foundation,and as reported in the New York Times,Democrat Charlie Rangels financial disclosure forms,had at least 28 omissions in the past 30 years.

At least $239.000 in assets were not accounted for.For some struggling Americans,$239.000 would be a lifetime of sweat and tears.

Vanman, picking nits again aren't we?

If you divide $239,000 by 30 years, it amounts to only $7,667 per year. By politician standards that's not even a discernible blip on the corruption radar screen.

 

[NickCole]

Vanman, picking nits again aren't we?

If you divide $239,000 by 30 years, it amounts to only $7,667 per year. By politician standards that's not even a discernible blip on the corruption radar screen.

What a silly defense.

Is this the higher ethical standard Obama is inspiring?

It only averages out to $7,667 a year so being concerned is nitpicking?

$7,667 a year is real money to a lot of Americans, and our public servants should be respectful of that and get this stuff right.

Even if it's just "sloppy bookkeeping," which I don't believe, that's not good enough.

Stop giving a pass to elected officials who aren't doing the right thing.

 

[smelter]

^ .... lighten up a bit Nick, it was a joke!

 

[chance1]

rangel is a black eye for dems

clearly a crook

who is laughing at his accusers and at the party

and trying to make it like it's a witch hunt instead of what it is - which is he is a dishonest man

he needs to be removed from the chairmanship of the House Ways & Means

 

[Kulindahr]

I propose a new law:

when elected officials fail to report income, the assets on which that income is based are siezed, auctioned, and the proceeds donated to charities which care for the poor.

The annual figure behind that is enough that added to my current income, I'd actually be able to contemplate buying a home.....

 

[TX-Beau]

To be fair, both sides do that.

 

[Kulindahr]

But you'd need more regulation to actually get that to happen.

I respect your views as a Libertarian but some of the things you propose (like taxing churches when they spend money on political agendas) compromise your political views.

A lot of that is sort of tongue-in-cheek, and a lot is playing the "if you want to have laws...."
But in terms of elected -- or unelected -- officials, I have no problem with regulating them into poverty if they misbehave.
And in terms of large entities meddling in politics, they should either be excluded, or treated like disease-ridden wild beasts likely to turn on us without warning.

It's not possible to have too much regulation restricting the government and those non-citizen entities which like to pull its strings to jerk around the rest of us.

So, proposing taxing churches when they mess in politics isn't so much inconsistent as anemic: the thing to do if churches meddle in politics is make them tithe (they all ask for people to tithe, right?) -- seize ten percent of their complete assets.
But the real thing to do is to tell churches to keep the frak out of politics, along with all other large corporations/organizations. Politics belongs to the people, and it they can't register to vote, they aren't the people.

 

[Kulindahr]

You've noticed that too eh?

So many people cow about "smaller" government yet scream "there outta be a law" or "where was the govt to protect us" when rogue peanut butter or tainted milk show up. They must just mean the parts of govt they don't use, while defending every nickel and dime of the govt that they do use.

I scream for more regulation in order to restrain government, and organizations that seek to corrupt it by exercising influence over it.

About the only parts of government I "use" are sewer, streets and roads, and police. And I'm not convinced that any of those -- especially the first two -- need to be government functions at all.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

2nd.

Worst.

Haiku.

Ever.

Haha, one of the few times I've laughed when reading CE&P

Meh. If he broke the law he should pay just like any other person.

***Newsflash***

We don't put tax dodgers in jail. We make them pay along with stiff penalties. If they refuse to pay, and thwart garnishment & liens then and only then is jail time considered for said taxpayer/dodger. The IRS just wants their money.

Agreed

Up-date for kooky Fat Cat Charlie Rangel....

Seems kooky Fat Cat Charlie didn't realize he was a half million dollars richer in 2007.....

To be fair, the disclosure reports are done in ranges, not specifics. So one or two changes could make the range change dramatically. For instance, if it asks for information about an investment there might be a range from $100,000-$250,000 and the next range might be $250,000-$500,000. Maybe the company he invested with changed a report and his investment went from being worth $249,000 to $251,000. In reality it's a $2,000 difference, but on the reports it would appear as a $250,000 difference due to the ranges. Not saying that happened, but it's a possible explanation.

 

[jackoroe]

I think it reasonable, that the Representative respnsible for writing the tax laws, lead by a good example in his own affairs.

Strip him of his commitee chairmanship and give it to somebody that follows the rules. Not too much to ask, is it?

 

[jackoroe]

The appearance of impropriety should be sufficient to remove a sitting chairman. Nobody is talking about jail or fining him. So the standard for action doesn't need to be that high. If we find out there's more to this, then go even furher.

We were promised better.

 

[Kulindahr]

The appearance of impropriety should be sufficient to remove a sitting chairman. Nobody is talking about jail or fining him. So the standard for action doesn't need to be that high. If we find out there's more to this, then go even furher.

We were promised better.

The appearance of impropriety was enough for the Supreme Court to curtail free speech -- it ought to be enough to ditch a chairman!

 

[Kulindahr]

Charlie Rangel gave donations to three out of the five democrats that are investigating him.Isn't that something......

Those three should recuse themselves and others should replace them.

Pelosi said she would drain the swamp of corruption,but continues to pollute it by protecting him. No wonder Pelosi's approval ratings suck.Time to drain the swamp Nancy.....

First step: terms limits for the House.