Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 103

Thread: IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

  1. #21
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,400
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    So in the end none of the groups were denied tax free status?
    It's not about denial. It's about delay, intimidation and hassles. Many were dragged out for 3 years. In contrast, the shady "Barack H. Obama Foundation," run by Obama's brother, was rubber-stamped IN ONE MONTH by Lois Lerner herself, and even granted the status retroactively going back almost a year.

    Forthcoming jokes aside, it really is outrageous for the IRS to pull sh:t like this.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    So in the end none of the groups were denied tax free status?
    Are you trying to find a reason to support/dismiss this issue?

    Lets put it into different terms. Lets say the Government arrests you and others like you who share your political views, without cause, and locks you away for 20-27 months.

    When they release you, is it your first instinct to say "So in the end none of those arrested stayed in jail? "

    Or another way, lets say your employer (teh Government) decides not to pay you, based on your political views, for 20-27 months.

    When they finally pay you, is it your first instinct to say "So in then end none of those denied their paychecks lost any money? "

    The eventual approval/denial is not relevant to the issue. The issue is differing treatment based on political viewpoint in breach of law/regulation.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    it really is outrageous for the IRS to pull sh:t like this.
    It's way beyond the pale and everyone on some level, whether admitting it or not, knows it.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    It's not about denial. It's about delay, intimidation and hassles. Many were dragged out for 3 years. In contrast, the shady "Barack H. Obama Foundation," run by Obama's brother, was rubber-stamped IN ONE MONTH by Lois Lerner herself, and even granted the status retroactively going back almost a year.

    Forthcoming jokes aside, it really is outrageous for the IRS to pull sh:t like this.
    The IRS acted stupidly and should be putting all of the groups trying to become a tax free entity through the same scrutiny.
    This article reflects what I am talking about:

    It's about time the IRS subjected all of these outfits to scrutiny. The agency's inaction has served the purposes of donors and political organizations on both sides of the aisle, and contributed to the explosive infection of the electoral process by big money from individuals and corporations.

    Nor is Congress innocent. The lawmakers have dodged their responsibility to make the rules crystal clear. On the rare occasions when the IRS has tried gingerly to impose regulatory order, members of Congress have forced the agency to back off. There should be a rule in Washington that if you give regulators deliberately vague guidelines, you're not allowed to protest when they try to figure out where the lines are.

    Thanks to ambiguity about what it means to be "primarily" concerned with "social welfare," political activists have reaped a bonanza for years while the IRS ignored their chicanery. And once again, now that the agency has tried to regulate, the regulated parties have blown its efforts up into a "scandal." It's amusing to reflect that some politicians making hay over this are the same people who contend that we don't need more regulations, we just need to enforce the ones we have. (Examples: gun control and banking regulation.) Here's a case where the IRS is trying to enforce regulations that Congress enacted, and it's still somehow doing the wrong thing.

    Keep that in mind when you hear politicians — and they're not exclusively Republicans — grandstanding about how the IRS actions are "chilling" or "un-American." It turns out that none of the "targeted" groups actually was denied C4 status. Nevertheless, says Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "There's a sense of discomfort that the IRS was doing much of anything."

    The IRS wasn't actually doing much. The biggest C4s, including one founded by GOP operative Karl Rove and another run by ex-Obama campaign staffers, got their C4 status routinely. The little guys got questionnaires.

    C4s are curious creatures in the tax code. They're allowed to engage in lobbying, but not ("primarily") in campaign activity. Their donors don't get a tax deduction, but the organizations are tax-exempt. For example, they don't have to pay taxes on income they earn by investing donated funds. But what makes C4s especially attractive to people who want to funnel money into politics is this: They don't have to identify their donors.

    Remember the mysterious $11-million donation to the campaign for California's anti-union Proposition 32 last November? When the state Fair Political Practices Commission punctured its anonymity, it found not one, but two 501(c)4 organizations behind it. The FPPC, which is still investigating, has already called this a case of "campaign money laundering."
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...1622097.column
    Last edited by cr726; 05-15-2013 at 12:30 PM.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Times Article
    Here's a case where the IRS is trying to enforce regulations that Congress enacted, and it's still somehow doing the wrong thing.
    An amazing amount of spin trying to defend this obvious case of political descrimination by the Government.

    Lets see.

    1. Blame Congress for the IRS's descriminatory action (descrimination of one side based on politics is not in the Law).
    2. Claim "Vague" rules somehow allow/permit/validate one-sided political descrimination.
    3. Inflate the issue to imply this wasn't a one-sided political descrimination.
    4. Redefine Terms (Social Welfare), implying (R/Con.) isn't, (D/Prog.) is, as validation of the decrimination.
    5. Cloud the issue by saying "well, none got denied" when that isn't the issue being raised.
    6. Complain about anonymous donations (irrelevant to the IRS's politcal-based descrimination).

    Not mentioned here, but being used regularly in other spin:

    7. It wasn't political (despite being so one-sided vs. a specific viewpoint).
    8. It wasn't approved by Higher Ups (i.e. the "Rogue Agents" theory, where every rogue agent used exactly the same one-sided bias, forms, and questions).
    9. Ignore that many of the questions asked in this descrimination were not legally permitted to be asked by the IRS.
    10. Ignore completely that the timeframe of this (who was and who wasn't approved) was clearly in-line with the 2012 election cycle, and the potential effect on the election that may (or may not) have had.

    The LA Times article reads like a puff piece written by one of teh agents who engaged in this illegal descrimination. It certainly does not read like traditional objective journalism.

    The IRS acted stupidly
    Illegally. They broke the Law.

    They may or may not face the penalty from that law breaking, but they broke the Law nonetheless.

  6. #26
    Warfish? Wow


    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    An amazing amount of spin trying to defend this obvious case of political descrimination by the Government.

    Lets see.

    1. Blame Congress for the IRS's descriminatory action (descrimination of one side based on politics is not in the Law).
    2. Claim "Vague" rules somehow allow/permit/validate one-sided political descrimination.
    3. Inflate the issue to imply this wasn't a one-sided political descrimination.
    4. Redefine Terms (Social Welfare), implying (R/Con.) isn't, (D/Prog.) is, as validation of the decrimination.
    5. Cloud the issue by saying "well, none got denied" when that isn't the issue being raised.
    6. Complain about anonymous donations (irrelevant to the IRS's politcal-based descrimination).

    Not mentioned here, but being used regularly in other spin:

    7. It wasn't political (despite being so one-sided vs. a specific viewpoint).
    8. It wasn't approved by Higher Ups (i.e. the "Rogue Agents" theory, where every rogue agent used exactly the same one-sided bias, forms, and questions).
    9. Ignore that many of the questions asked in this descrimination were not legally permitted to be asked by the IRS.
    10. Ignore completely that the timeframe of this (who was and who wasn't approved) was clearly in-line with the 2012 election cycle, and the potential effect on the election that may (or may not) have had.

    The LA Times article reads like a puff piece written by one of teh agents who engaged in this illegal descrimination. It certainly does not read like traditional objective journalism.



    Illegally. They broke the Law.

    They may or may not face the penalty from that law breaking, but they broke the Law nonetheless.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    You own a small biz right? Go through an IRS audit, even with a NO CHANGE, it is like a colonospocy.

    the records, bank statements, all the work.

    y.
    Murray says we're all set.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    An amazing amount of spin trying to defend this obvious case of political descrimination by the Government.

    Lets see.

    1. Blame Congress for the IRS's descriminatory action (descrimination of one side based on politics is not in the Law).
    2. Claim "Vague" rules somehow allow/permit/validate one-sided political descrimination.
    3. Inflate the issue to imply this wasn't a one-sided political descrimination.
    4. Redefine Terms (Social Welfare), implying (R/Con.) isn't, (D/Prog.) is, as validation of the decrimination.
    5. Cloud the issue by saying "well, none got denied" when that isn't the issue being raised.
    6. Complain about anonymous donations (irrelevant to the IRS's politcal-based descrimination).

    Not mentioned here, but being used regularly in other spin:

    7. It wasn't political (despite being so one-sided vs. a specific viewpoint).
    8. It wasn't approved by Higher Ups (i.e. the "Rogue Agents" theory, where every rogue agent used exactly the same one-sided bias, forms, and questions).
    9. Ignore that many of the questions asked in this descrimination were not legally permitted to be asked by the IRS.
    10. Ignore completely that the timeframe of this (who was and who wasn't approved) was clearly in-line with the 2012 election cycle, and the potential effect on the election that may (or may not) have had.

    The LA Times article reads like a puff piece written by one of teh agents who engaged in this illegal descrimination. It certainly does not read like traditional objective journalism.



    Illegally. They broke the Law.

    They may or may not face the penalty from that law breaking, but they broke the Law nonetheless.
    They is not the President. The President fired a guy who had nothing to do with it and there is a criminal investigation going on. The Presidents fake outrage is almost as good as FOX News and the Republicans. This is about money going to politicians blindly, something that is in the self interest of every elected official and not in the interest of US citizens. Lets see if the Republicans and Democrats actually take IRS power away by getting rid of these fake none profits. It's not going to happen and you know why.

    The IRS is as independent as it gets which is why vague rules by Congress is dangerous.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-16-2013 at 09:26 AM.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    They is not the President.
    We do not know what the President knew or did not know on the IRS descrimination issue.

    The President fired a guy who had nothing to do with it
    Factually, we do not know what the Head of the IRS (who was quitting anyway and hence was not in fact fired) knew or did not know.

    Thats why we have investigations.

    and there is a criminal investigation going on.
    Being conducted by another politicalyl-influenced Executive Office that is supposed to be politically neutral.

    The Presidents fake outrage is almost as good as FOX News and the Republicans.
    I can't speak for anyone elses outrage. My concern over the IRS issue and it's ramifications is, I assure you, not "fake".

    This is about money going to politicians blindly, something that is in the self interest of every elected official and not in the interest of US citizens.
    I disagree. This is about political-based descrimination by our Government.

    Lets see if the Republicans and Democrats actually take IRS power away by getting rid of these fake none profits.
    While I may agree regarding non-profit tax-exemptions, I find it interesting that your solution to unfettered and widespread political descrimination by our Executive Branchin the form of the Tax Dept. is to remove the benefit that was being descriminated on.

    Thats like suggesting removal of free speech because the Govt. was descriminating against one specific groups free speech.

    It's not going to happen and you know why.
    Which is, IMO, irrelevant to the issue thats at the core here.

    The IRS is as independent as it gets which is why vague rules by Congress is dangerous.
    The rules were not vague enough to excuse blatant political-based descrimination of one side and one side only.

    Like others, you appear to be strongly looking for a way to excuse these actions, to deflect the topic from the actions of descrimination taken into a wider debate i.e. softening the actual crime committed, and blaming anyone but the Executive Branch/IRS for the actions taken by the Executive Branch/IRS to descriminate against one political group.

    While I would enjoy a wider discussion of Tax Exempt status, thats not the issue. The issue is political descrimination and law breaking by the IRS.
    Last edited by Churchill; 05-16-2013 at 10:34 AM.

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    We do not know what the President knew or did not know on the IRS descrimination issue.
    The President not knowing anything is becoming a hallmark. Seems like the only thing he knew anything about was the bin Laden raid.

    At the very least we are talking about incompetence. At the worst it could be something sinister.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    The rules were not vague enough to excuse blatant political-based descrimination of one side and one side only.

    Like others, you appear to be strongly looking for a way to excuse these actions, to deflect the topic from the actions of descrimination taken into a wider debate i.e. softening the actual crime committed, and blaming anyone but the Executive Branch/IRS for the actions taken by the Executive Branch/IRS to descriminate against one political group.

    While I would enjoy a wider discussion of Tax Exempt status, thats not the issue. The issue is political descrimination and law breaking by the IRS.
    I think those responsible should be criminally prosecuted. Like others you appear to want to blame the President without any real proof that he is responsible.

    You seem to want to have this both ways. Blame the President yet go after the actual law breakers, which is it?

    As a taxpayer, a citizen, voter and someone entitled to equal representation, I think the rules in play are discriminatory. That is separate from the criminal actions of the IRS but from my POV far more important than the actions of a handful of underling criminals.

    The criminal deserves prosecution but to not be outraged by the ability of big donors to hide behind tax exempt status shows that you really don't care about fairness, you simply want to get the other side. If fairness in our political system isn't the issue, what are you upset about?

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I think those responsible should be criminally prosecuted.
    We agree on this point.

    Like others you appear to want to blame the President without any real proof that he is responsible.
    Incorrect.

    I would like to see a Congressional Investigation and a Criminal Probe.

    As a taxpayer, a citizen, voter and someone entitled to equal representation, I think the rules in play are discriminatory.
    Then vote for someone who wants to change them, till then, they ARE the rules.

    And the rules in place do not permit political-based descrimination of one side.

    As I said, if you'd like to discuss 503 policy, create a thread on it, it's not relevant to this issue, no matter how much you or others try to broaden or deflect from it.

    This issue is vary simple. The Government, specificly the Executive Branch, via the IRS, engaged in criminal descrimination of one group based on their political "side" in the leadup to the 2012 Presidential election.

    I would request (again) that you stay on-topic, and if you feel related topics like overall 503 policy warrant their own discussion, please start a thread to discuss them.

  13. #33
    How do you get to ignore the 503 rules when you look at this case? It's def one of the factors and you can't simply ignore that to make your view seem more valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    We agree on this point.



    Incorrect.

    I would like to see a Congressional Investigation and a Criminal Probe.



    Then vote for someone who wants to change them, till then, they ARE the rules.

    And the rules in place do not permit political-based descrimination of one side.

    As I said, if you'd like to discuss 503 policy, create a thread on it, it's not relevant to this issue, no matter how much you or others try to broaden or deflect from it.

    This issue is vary simple. The Government, specificly the Executive Branch, via the IRS, engaged in criminal descrimination of one group based on their political "side" in the leadup to the 2012 Presidential election.

    I would request (again) that you stay on-topic, and if you feel related topics like overall 503 policy warrant their own discussion, please start a thread to discuss them.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    We agree on this point.



    Incorrect.

    I would like to see a Congressional Investigation and a Criminal Probe.



    Then vote for someone who wants to change them, till then, they ARE the rules.

    And the rules in place do not permit political-based descrimination of one side.

    As I said, if you'd like to discuss 503 policy, create a thread on it, it's not relevant to this issue, no matter how much you or others try to broaden or deflect from it.

    This issue is vary simple. The Government, specificly the Executive Branch, via the IRS, engaged in criminal descrimination of one group based on their political "side" in the leadup to the 2012 Presidential election.

    I would request (again) that you stay on-topic, and if you feel related topics like overall 503 policy warrant their own discussion, please start a thread to discuss them.
    Who the F are you to say what's relevant? Stop acting like a political hack. There was no candidate who discussed this issue and the Conservative Republicans have supported a Court that helped define the outrageous money that's flowing into this campaigns in spite of our elected officials trying to prevent some of the worst of it.

    You want to investigate the President on this. Based on what exactly? And who exactly do you want to investigate? The Republican Congress, The Justice department or an independent prosecutor?

    You are pointing the finger with no evidence what's so ever. Do you want an investigation or do you want to point the finger at the President?

    The issue isn't simple at all the IRS was not acting as part of the executive branch unless you have evidence of that which you don't. You clearly don't understand how the executive branch and the IRS operate.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Who the F are you to say what's relevant? Stop acting like a political hack. There was no candidate who discussed this issue and the Conservative Republicans have supported a Court that helped define the outrageous money that's flowing into this campaigns in spite of our elected officials trying to prevent some of the worst of it.

    You want to investigate the President on this. Based on what exactly? And who exactly do you want to investigate? The Republican Congress, The Justice department or an independent prosecutor?

    You are pointing the finger with no evidence what's so ever. Do you want an investigation or do you want to point the finger at the President?

    The issue isn't simple at all the IRS was not acting as part of the executive branch unless you have evidence of that which you don't. You clearly don't understand how the executive branch and the IRS operate.

    The IRS is under the domain of the Secretary of the Treasury - an executive branch department.
    The head of the IRS is only one position removed from the direct influence of the President. That's pretty close. It would not be the first time a Pres asked IRS to take a look see at annoying groups.
    Next: FBI investigations of the Tea Party? Women for Right to Life? End Obamacare Now?
    Seems a little convenient, this IRS thing. As does the checking of media phone and emails.
    As a Senate witness said in the Godfather: "Buffers? Yeah, there were always lots of buffers. LOL".

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Who the F are you to say what's relevant?
    The issue is the illegal descrimination activities of the IRS.

    The rules for one and all are only relevant to this issue in that they were not applied equally, as they are required to be to avoid engaging in political-based descrimination.

    Changing the rules for one and all because of X or Y opinion would be a different topic. The rules were not broken because of the rules themselves.

    The rules were clearly broken for political-based reasons, otherwise basic statistic analysis would show that the descrimination would not have been 100% universally one-sided, while other points-of-view recieved favorable treatement and speedy approval without such scrutiny during teh same period.

    You want to investigate the President on this.
    I want to investigate, both congressionally and ciminally, the events of the IRS breaking the law, yes.

    If the investigation had cause to involve the President, then yes, the President would/could be involved.

    You are pointing the finger with no evidence what's so ever.
    The IRS's own admission, and subsequent reporting on it, is evidence of law breaking descrimination. Hence the validity of appropriate investigations.

    The issue isn't simple at all the IRS was not acting as part of the executive branch unless you have evidence of that which you don't.You clearly don't understand how the executive branch and the IRS operate.
    The IRS is a part of the Executive Branch. As such, that branch is responsible for it's activities. Failure to oversee ones responsabillities does not eliminate that responsabillity.

    The purpose of investigation is to determine why the law breaking descrimination occured, who authorized it and/or allowed it to persist, what outside factors may or may not have been involved, and what oversight did not function or was not in place that would have prevented it.

    All of which requires that witnesses and alleged perpetrators provide their testimony under oath, and with all due rights permitted them.

  17. #37
    Did you read the IG report? You are jumping to conclusions way too quickly here.



    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    The issue is the illegal descrimination activities of the IRS.

    The rules for one and all are only relevant to this issue in that they were not applied equally, as they are required to be to avoid engaging in political-based descrimination.

    Changing the rules for one and all because of X or Y opinion would be a different topic. The rules were not broken because of the rules themselves.

    The rules were clearly broken for political-based reasons, otherwise basic statistic analysis would show that the descrimination would not have been 100% universally one-sided, while other points-of-view recieved favorable treatement and speedy approval without such scrutiny during teh same period.



    I want to investigate, both congressionally and ciminally, the events of the IRS breaking the law, yes.

    If the investigation had cause to involve the President, then yes, the President would/could be involved.



    The IRS's own admission, and subsequent reporting on it, is evidence of law breaking descrimination. Hence the validity of appropriate investigations.



    The IRS is a part of the Executive Branch. As such, that branch is responsible for it's activities. Failure to oversee ones responsabillities does not eliminate that responsabillity.

    The purpose of investigation is to determine why the law breaking descrimination occured, who authorized it and/or allowed it to persist, what outside factors may or may not have been involved, and what oversight did not function or was not in place that would have prevented it.

    All of which requires that witnesses and alleged perpetrators provide their testimony under oath, and with all due rights permitted them.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    The issue is the illegal descrimination activities of the IRS.
    BTW, Welcome back,

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,655
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    The IRS is under the domain of the Secretary of the Treasury - an executive branch department.
    The head of the IRS is only one position removed from the direct influence of the President. That's pretty close. It would not be the first time a Pres asked IRS to take a look see at annoying groups.
    Next: FBI investigations of the Tea Party? Women for Right to Life? End Obamacare Now?
    Seems a little convenient, this IRS thing. As does the checking of media phone and emails.
    As a Senate witness said in the Godfather: "Buffers? Yeah, there were always lots of buffers. LOL".
    More like Claude Rains in Casablanca: Shocked, shocked to see gambling here! And then the casino guy gives him his winnings.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    More like Claude Rains in Casablanca: Shocked, shocked to see gambling here! And then the casino guy gives him his winnings.
    Oh yea, except in this movie Claude doesn't know the casino exists until its too late.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us