Obama Appointees and Tax Questions

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

In the public and media's defense, I don't think Bush got Bush-type treatment from the very beginning.

Umm ... didn't we have some articles around here a few months back that discussed how Bush was the first President not to be afforded the normal 100 days honeymoon by the media?

He was pretty much a whipping boy for the media from the get go having defeated the false prophet, err, Owl Gore.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're absolutely right. If only the left would have held to that statement with Dubya. Dubya tried to walk through a locked door and got fried for it. The Messiah tried to walk through a window and we barely heard a peep.

The stark contrast in coverage even through the first two weeks of this adminstration is blatently obvious.

How did those poll numbers work out again?

Oh, that's right.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Autumn

In Dubya's case, saying things mistakenly a million times instead of a thousand was the issue.

I would argue the problem was that the man didn't even know what he said was wrong. The difference between speech gaffe and incorrect statement is the difference between mistake and just being not real bright. Anyone can accidentally say "1+1=3", if they're rushing or thinking about something else or whatever, it's when you didn't know that it was incorrect that there's a problem.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

How did those poll numbers work out again?

Oh, that's right.

Yeah, The Messiah's already pulled that "I won" comment out in the first week of office, which didn't fly well at all in the court of public opinion. It's that kind of arrogance without assessing the situation that one-term presidents and short-term majorities are made of. The left would be wise to pocket those kinds of stances as quickly as possible. No one's going to be interested in 'unity' with someone who acts in that manner.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I would argue the problem was that the man didn't even know what he said was wrong. The difference between speech gaffe and incorrect statement is the difference between mistake and just being not real bright. Anyone can accidentally say "1+1=3", if they're rushing or thinking about something else or whatever, it's when you didn't know that it was incorrect that there's a problem.

SI

I agree with your statement, but portraying Pelosi as someone that is bright but made a mistake is pretty faulty logic. She and Harry Reid are a disaster in the making. Neither are all that intelligent. No question this was just a misstatement, but Pelosi has plenty of previous gaffes that set a pretty obvious precedent.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... didn't we have some articles around here a few months back that discussed how Bush was the first President not to be afforded the normal 100 days honeymoon by the media?

He was pretty much a whipping boy for the media from the get go having defeated the false prophet, err, Owl Gore.

I'm talking about being razzed for misspeaking. I'm not saying he got good press, I'm just saying people weren't jumping on him for his malapropisms until he had made enough of them that that became his story.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree with your statement, but portraying Pelosi as someone that is bright but made a mistake is pretty faulty logic. She and Harry Reid are a disaster in the making. Neither are all that intelligent. No question this was just a misstatement, but Pelosi has plenty of previous gaffes that set a pretty obvious precedent.

She is, without question, the dumbest person in politics. She doesn't have a clue about anything. How in the world she has reached that level is beyond me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, The Messiah's already pulled that "I won" comment out in the first week of office, which didn't fly well at all in the court of public opinion. It's that kind of arrogance without assessing the situation that one-term presidents and short-term majorities are made of. The left would be wise to pocket those kinds of stances as quickly as possible. No one's going to be interested in 'unity' with someone who acts in that manner.

That's true if by court of opinion you mean right wing media. Check the approval numbers, nobody gives a shit whether Obama said we won.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

She is, without question, the dumbest person in politics. She doesn't have a clue about anything. How in the world she has reached that level is beyond me.

dola

I'd take that further and say that Pelosi is the dumbest person in the history of mankind. She said million when she meant thousand.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's true if by court of opinion you mean right wing media. Check the approval numbers, nobody gives a shit whether Obama said we won.

A look at the approval for the stimulus package, however, seems to tell a different story.

[JPhillips]

I'd agree that the communications effort around the stimulus has been terrible, but the idea that the country turned away from Obama over the I won comments has no basis in fact.

Taking MBBF's argument further, I completely disagree that the way to a successful administration and reelection is through unity. I don't know if there's a single example of that in presidential history. The way to popularity and reelection is through a strong vision that ends up being at least reasonably successful. Certainly the last three two term Presidents didn't gain reelection through a primary focus of placating the minority.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A look at the approval for the stimulus package, however, seems to tell a different story.

You mean the ones that show the majority of Americans have already figured out that this is either useless or a steaming pile of dog crap?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114097/Am...r-Changes.aspx

[rowech]

I don't understand how any person with any common sense can think the crap these people are cranking out is a good idea. Bunch of people didn't get money they wanted when Bush was president so line up and give out handouts at the taxpayers expense. Is the American public stupid enough to not understand that we're going to pay terribly for this down the road? You can't just crank out money when you want/need it. The system is setup for companies to adjust to the market demands or fail. Some companies simply run their course because they don't adjust and it MUST be this way for the economy to go forward. There have to be regressions back...an economy can't be good all the time and to believe that it can through government intervention is prolonging the inevitable and making the inevitable that much worse.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean the ones that show the majority of Americans have already figured out that this is either useless or a steaming pile of dog crap?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114097/Am...r-Changes.aspx

And as time goes on, more and more seem to share that opinion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

Is the American public stupid enough to not understand that we're going to pay terribly for this down the road?

Is this actually even in doubt any more?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You're absolutely right. If only the left would have held to that statement with Dubya. Dubya tried to walk through a locked door and got fried for it. The Messiah tried to walk through a window and we barely heard a peep.

The stark contrast in coverage even through the first two weeks of this adminstration is blatently obvious.

I don't think he was fried for it. Comedians made fun of him, but I saw a lot of jokes made about Obama too for it.

They're also at different stages of their Presidency. One is new and has rather high approval numbers. The other at the time of the incident was dealing with a country that realized he lied to them and had gotten a lot of good Americans killed in the process. This wasn't a left vs right issue. It was people piling on a shitty President.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... didn't we have some articles around here a few months back that discussed how Bush was the first President not to be afforded the normal 100 days honeymoon by the media?

He was pretty much a whipping boy for the media from the get go having defeated the false prophet, err, Owl Gore.

He was also given much more leeway than any President in recent memory has ever been given after 9/11. He had a 90%+ approval rating and the media didn't touch him for years. He was able to build up a war in Iraq with little resistance from the media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He was also given much more leeway than any President in recent memory has ever been given after 9/11. He had a 90%+ approval rating and the media didn't touch him for years. He was able to build up a war in Iraq with little resistance from the media.

We'll have to disagree about the degree of resistance, and Lord only knows they certainly made up for it with plenty of sedition afterwards.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We'll have to disagree about the degree of resistance, and Lord only knows they certainly made up for it with plenty of sedition afterwards.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

se⋅di⋅tion

   /sɪˈdɪʃən/ [si-dish-uhn]
–noun

1.	incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2.	any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

3.	Archaic. rebellious disorder.

Origin:
1325–75; < L sēditiōn- (s. of sēditiō), equiv. to sēd- se- + -itiōn- a going (it(us), ptp. of īre to go + -iōn- -ion ); r. ME sedicioun < AF < L, as above


I know I'm not going to change your mind, Jon. But questioning the government is not sedition. In the literal sense of the definition above, it might be writing promoting discontent. However, it was nowhere near civil discontent or rebellion, the more precise definition of the word that dictionary.com does not quite convey.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Seems that I know what it means but happen to use it far more literally than you would. The important thing to note is the use of the word "or" between discontent and rebellion instead of "and".

Not all questioning is seditious ... but that doesn't mean that no questioning is ever seditious.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We'll have to disagree about the degree of resistance, and Lord only knows they certainly made up for it with plenty of sedition afterwards.

You honestly think the media was tough on Bush after 9/11? Sure a few questions were bantered around, but it was mostly people fawning over the President and his staff. I'm sure you remember how Rumsfeld was treated like a God by the media for a short while.

There were few members of the media really digging into the information on the weapons of mass destruction. Few members who questioned their flimsy intelligence. Few who questioned the long term objective. Few people who called them on their bullshit. The media got too wrapped up in stories about freedom fries to realize what a clusterfuck we were sending kids into.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Seems that I know what it means but happen to use it far more literally than you would. The important thing to note is the use of the word "or" between discontent and rebellion instead of "and".

Not all questioning is seditious ... but that doesn't mean that no questioning is ever seditious.

Sedition is about conduct or language to incite people to rebel against the government. You are really stretching the meaning of the word and how it's been used throughout the country's history to fit your agenda. It just sounds silly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's a person in Obama's cabinet that DOESN'T have questionable financial statements or lobbyist backgrounds (which Obama promised not to put in his adminstration). Panetta is the latest..........

CIA Nominee Panetta Received $700,000 in Fees - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You honestly think the media was tough on Bush after 9/11? Sure a few questions were bantered around, but it was mostly people fawning over the President and his staff. I'm sure you remember how Rumsfeld was treated like a God by the media for a short while.

There were few members of the media really digging into the information on the weapons of mass destruction. Few members who questioned their flimsy intelligence. Few who questioned the long term objective. Few people who called them on their bullshit. The media got too wrapped up in stories about freedom fries to realize what a clusterfuck we were sending kids into.

It's actually similar to the way Obama is set up for failure.

Iraq wasn't going to be considered a success unless they had a Starbucks on every corner within 30 days. Likewise, Obama is showing that he won't be able to live up to the ridiculous god-like expectations the media (and himself) have set forth.

He'll get longer than Bush, the reaction will be more gentle, but there's a good chance he's turned on as well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Sedition is about conduct or language to incite people to rebel against the government. You are really stretching the meaning of the word and how it's been used throughout the country's history to fit your agenda.

Oh really? The Sedition Act defined it as "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. No mention of overthrowing the government that I see. Where am I stretching the meaning? If anything I'd say you're trying to narrow it to excuse the behavior.

And before anyone even tries to go there, the eventual fate of the Alien & Sedition laws has nothing to do with the definition of the word here, that only affects the application of penalties for the action.

[JPhillips]

Given the things you've said about Obama, would you be willing to turn yourself in as guilty of sedition?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh really? The Sedition Act defined it as "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. No mention of overthrowing the government that I see. Where am I stretching the meaning? If anything I'd say you're trying to narrow it to excuse the behavior.

And before anyone even tries to go there, the eventual fate of the Alien & Sedition laws has nothing to do with the definition of the word here, that only affects the application of penalties for the action.

nothing was false or scandalous about it, and it'd probably be a stretch to call it malicious.

what was false and maliciously-used was the administration's evidence of WMD in Iraq and Iraq's alleged ties to al-Qaeda.

If you want to live in a state where nobody questions and critiques the government Jon you are in the wrong country. I hear there is plenty of land for the taking available in North Korea though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Given the things you've said about Obama, would you be willing to turn yourself in as guilty of sedition?

I'd happily & proudly stand trial on such charges.

But then again he doesn't get elected if those (hypothetical laws) had been enforced instead of allowing people hell bent on destroying anything worthwhile in the country to spoonfeed the mindless masses, so it becomes pretty hypothetical (until Pelosi & Reid figure out how to use this to secure grip on power at least).

As an aside here, I sure hope no one thinks I'm suggesting this sort of thing is a brand new phenomenon; i.e. I'm not just talking about the need to line Maher & Olberman up against a wall somewhere. Our downfall began long before those bozos ever started shaving much less found an audience.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

nothing was false or scandalous about it, and it'd probably be a stretch to call it malicious.

Okay, if you typed that with a straight face, you can probably remove that quote about being smart now.

edit: Oops, wait, looks like you already did.

double edit: Alas, NK's despot isn't quite as enlightened as what I'd hope for. But do keep an eye out for an upgraded version, that could have considerably more appeal. I've pretty much lost hope in our current model of "democracy" ever producing solutions instead of creating more problems so there's certainly an opening for me to find something that suits me better, that suggestion just doesn't happen to be it.

[DaddyTorgo]

For you to argue that the eventual fate of the Alien & Sedition Acts has no bearing is ludicrous as well. The fact that they expired or were repealed and that Jefferson held them unconstitutional and pardoned and released people convicted under them is certainly relevant.

If something existed in the past (over 200 years ago let's remember) and then was declared unconstitutional, how does one sit there with a straight face and try to apply it to the current world (a world which has radically changed in 200 years). Shit, if you're going to do that you might as well be pro-slavery. That existed within the last 200 years as well but was also declared unconstitutional. But it sure as shit made some people's lives easier right? Just like applying the Alien & Sedition Laws would make the job of the government "easier".

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

and as far as my comment I was referring to the media's coverage during the buildup to the Iraq war in general, not the media's general treatment of Bush (in which there have certainly been falsehoods and malicious attacks).

[SportsDino]

I probably missed this, but what was your opinion of Dubya Jon? And did you believe in the mass failure of democracy 8 years ago?

[JPhillips]

Jon's an authoritarian. His support of the Sedition Act really has very little to do with protecting some form of our Constitutional Republic and much more to do with destroying those in opposition to his beliefs. He is consistent, but not in support of "the government". He's consistent in his belief in pure power to crush opposition and dissent. I think he's quite honest in saying he could support a dictator with Kim's powers if the ideology matched his own.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

For you to argue that the eventual fate of the Alien & Sedition Acts has no bearing is ludicrous as well.

No bearing with regard to the definition of the word, in other words, the word can be (and should be) separated from how it was narrowly used in that particular context. I mean, you could have seditious behavior in a freakin' homeowner's association, it simply means promoting discontent (and could be used if the HA had a reasonable facsimile of "government" authority).

This reminds me a good bit of the dispute a few years back about the definition of the word "enemy". I still maintain that my usage of that word was absolutely correct and that it's nothing short of Pollyanna to watch people avoid it simply because they're uncomfortable with the reality of it.

If something existed in the past (over 200 years ago let's remember) and then was declared unconstitutional

The word "sedition" was not declared unconstitutional, only the particular law that happened to apply certain penalties for the act. That's a pretty big difference, so much so that I'm not even sure we're arguing the same point at this point.

Shit, if you're going to do that you might as well be pro-slavery. That existed within the last 200 years as well but was also declared unconstitutional.

But that doesn't change the definition of the word "slavery".

Back to whether we're even arguing the same thing, make no mistake, I absolutely believe that the voiding of the Alien & Sedition Acts was a bad decision. I even more strongly believe that similar acts (particularly portions of the Alien Acts) would have been not only justifiable but necessary for the well-being of the country. But that has nothing to do with what the word "sedition" means.

[SportsDino]

I'd prefer his take on it, no offense. Just for academic purposes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I probably missed this, but what was your opinion of Dubya Jon? And did you believe in the mass failure of democracy 8 years ago?

In general terms I was a staunch supporter during his first term, less so during his second. Some of his missteps during the past four years were extremely frustrating, especially in light of my expectations & confidence during the first term. Part of the blame for that frustration, the expectations, lies with me not him though.

edit to add: Sorry, I posted before I finished the rest of your question.

I have had doubts about the viability of the current model of democracy we're working with for a long time (I'm 41 now, can remember pondering that point in my teens, so for me that's "a long time", YMMV) it's definitely not something that suddenly hit me last November or anything like that. My wilting confidence in it has been lifted a bit at times, ground under foot at others. I think I probably reached my actual conclusion about it somewhere in my early 20's -- and yes, there's a particular epiphany I would point to as when that happened, which had nothing to do with an election or outcome oddly enough -- and have simply been in denial about it to different degrees ever since.

FWIW, for all that we don't agree on, I'll give JPhillips credit for doing a reasonable job of representing my philosophy. I believe the reality is far more nuanced than the picture of me he painted but he was at least close enough that I wasn't remotely offended by the characterization or anything like that. I'm definitely authoritarian with a strong bent toward elitism and not the least bit apologetic about it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The word "sedition" was not declared unconstitutional, only the particular law that happened to apply certain penalties for the act. That's a pretty big difference, so much so that I'm not even sure we're arguing the same point at this point.

Nah, I think we're arguing different points at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nah, I think we're arguing different points at this point.

Point taken

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW, for all that we don't agree on, I'll give JPhillips credit for doing a reasonable job of representing my philosophy. I believe the reality is far more nuanced than the picture of me he painted but he was at least close enough that I wasn't remotely offended by the characterization or anything like that. I'm definitely authoritarian with a strong bent toward elitism and not the least bit apologetic about it.

I think JPhillips did a decent job of representing your philosophy, and honestly I never expected you'd like the NK idea - although there may be some countries somewhere where you might be happier, I doubt that NK is one of them for several different reasons.

Serious questions for you:

1) Would you be elitist even if you yourself were not a member of that elite?
2) Would you be authoritarian even if you were one of the people without any ability to weild power?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

1) Would you be elitist even if you yourself were not a member of that elite? 2) Would you be authoritarian even if you were one of the people without any ability to weild power?

You always strive for that elite and you definitely always strive for the level of power that puts you in some position of authority. If you have it, you fight to keep it & use it as well as possible. If you don't have it, you fight like hell to get it.

But ...

Let's be real here for a second DT, do either of us really believe I'm in either of those positions now?

Both words are very much relative I think, but anybody who believes I'm significantly influencing policy or procedure outside my own home has really misjudged the situation I'm afraid. I've gotten an ear or two over the years and maybe gotten two cents worth of input on some incredibly minor piece of local legislation but I've got a pretty good grip on the reality of where that fits in the grand scheme. Hell, I'm downwardly mobile middle class already and don't have final say on where/what I have for dinner. And my illusions about the likelihood of that changing are scarce indeed. How "elite" does that make me? And yet my positions are what they are.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You always strive for that elite and you definitely always strive for the level of power that puts you in some position of authority. If you have it, you fight to keep it & use it as well as possible. If you don't have it, you fight like hell to get it.

But ...

Let's be real here for a second DT, do either of us really believe I'm in either of those positions now?

Both words are very much relative I think, but anybody who believes I'm significantly influencing policy or procedure outside my own home has really misjudged the situation I'm afraid. I've gotten an ear or two over the years and maybe gotten two cents worth of input on some incredibly minor piece of local legislation but I've got a pretty good grip on the reality of where that fits in the grand scheme. Hell, I'm downwardly mobile middle class already and don't have final say on where/what I have for dinner. And my illusions about the likelihood of that changing are scarce indeed. How "elite" does that make me? And yet my positions are what they are.

*nods*

just checking. Lord knows it's easy enough to argue for those things as the ruler, significantly more difficult as the ruled.

[sterlingice]

Jon's basically the anti-Rawls

SI

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

double edit: Alas, NK's despot isn't quite as enlightened as what I'd hope for. But do keep an eye out for an upgraded version, that could have considerably more appeal. I've pretty much lost hope in our current model of "democracy" ever producing solutions instead of creating more problems so there's certainly an opening for me to find something that suits me better, that suggestion just doesn't happen to be it.

Are you perhaps looking for an American Vladimir Putin?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Jon's basically the anti-Rawls

Yeah, we probably didn't have much in common

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW, for all that we don't agree on, I'll give JPhillips credit for doing a reasonable job of representing my philosophy. I believe the reality is far more nuanced than the picture of me he painted but he was at least close enough that I wasn't remotely offended by the characterization or anything like that. I'm definitely authoritarian with a strong bent toward elitism and not the least bit apologetic about it.

I'm certain you're a much more complicated man than I could summarize in a paragraph(i.e. I still have trouble reconciling your love of women's basketball and incredible devotion to your pet), but we've argued enough that I feel relatively confident in summarizing your political beliefs.

While we are at almost polar opposites, I do respect that you're honest in your arguments.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, we probably didn't have much in common

Not quite who I meant, but, yeah

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh really? The Sedition Act defined it as "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. No mention of overthrowing the government that I see. Where am I stretching the meaning? If anything I'd say you're trying to narrow it to excuse the behavior.

And before anyone even tries to go there, the eventual fate of the Alien & Sedition laws has nothing to do with the definition of the word here, that only affects the application of penalties for the action.

And the Sedition Act of 1918 made it clear that it was in regards to inciting resistance to the government. If you truly believe that the word sedition has been defined in this country as "criticizing" someone, then I don't know what to tell you. All the Sedition Acts were setup to prevent one thing, a rebellion against the government.

I have a feeling you don't go around talking about the acts of sedition Jay Mariotti made against the Cubs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm certain you're a much more complicated man than I could summarize in a paragraph(i.e. I still have trouble reconciling your love of women's basketball and incredible devotion to your pet), but we've argued enough that I feel relatively confident in summarizing your political beliefs.

While we are at almost polar opposites, I do respect that you're honest in your arguments.

I think someone's political desires can be described as a personality trait of sorts. If you look at someone with a dependent personality, he fits right in. This isn't a negative thing, just a better way to understand why he believes in what he does. Dependents like others to structure their lives for them.

It comes down to not wanting to make decisions for themselves. They avoid those scenarios as much as possible. It's why they don't like differing opinions and would prefer those with them to be removed (or executed according to the Maher/Olbermann scenario posted above). If everyone is forced to believe one way, there is less of a chance of having to make choices.

One of the unique aspects of those with dependent personalities is they are extremely moralistic. Often times to the point of insensitivity. It's why they make great Priests.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

For a campaign that blasted McCain for his vetting process of Palin, the Obama administration seems to have learned nothing. Yet another nominee that has failed to pay their taxes in a timely manner. At this pace, we won't need a stimulus bill. We'll just collect all of the outstanding tax bills from Obama's cabinet to balance the budget.

Solis Senate Session Postponed in Wake of Husband's Tax Lien Revelations | 44 | washingtonpost.com

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by that same article

"The story denotes that her husband had some issues with paying a business tax, and obviously that tax is -- should be paid. He's -- she's not a partner in that business, Gibbs continued. "So we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes. Obviously, her husband, I think, has and should pay any taxes that he owes. "

just to balance it out a bit

Originally Posted by the original usa today article

Solis and her husband, Sam Sayyad, were unaware of liens against his auto repair shop until USA TODAY asked about them Tuesday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday. Vietor said Sayyad went to the Los Angeles County tax office and paid what he was told he owed — about $6,400 — to settle outstanding liens.

Sayyad plans to appeal, Vietor said. Anthony Yakimowich, chief deputy treasurer and tax collector for Los Angeles County, said his office notifies delinquent taxpayers by mail.

sounds to me like maybe they were never notified properly. they certainly paid them prompty once they were notified.