Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103

Thread: IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    IRS is an absolute POS government organization, it figures they'd be f*cking democrats. In fact, I feel stupid having just figured that out. I should have known this all along.

    Although I would never condone Obama or his administration, I have a hard time believing he was actually involved in this. It was probably a bunch of flaming fags that work for the IRS.

    If it can in fact be proved that he was involved in this? I'll believe it then. Until then, I just cannot see it.

    If anything, I think Obama is thinking that by throwing the perpetrators under the bus, he may actually score points with Republicans and get them to sit down at the table with him.

    The problem is, they are so far apart on everything under the sun that this is just way too little to provide any sort of breakthrough.

  2. #42
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Here's a clue. The IRS during this period was run by a Bush appointment. Status to Karl Rove's group and traditional Republican groups was given immediately and frankly they shouldn't get this status because everyone knows they weren't a charity they were simply hiding their donors.

    Maybe the true beneficiary here was the Republican Party who lost Senate and Congressional seats to Tea Party conservatives.

    It looks to me when the smoke clears the real beneficiary was Karl Rove and the Republican Party who sees the Tea Party and the far right as a threat to them and their business cronies.

    The IRS has no business giving any of these groups tax exempt status or hiding donors looking to manipulate politics. The investigation should include why the IRS gave any of these groups this status and if some groups were given special status for political reasons why and on who's orders. What's really clear which you want to ignore the big donors on both sides got a free ride.

    The Democrats would have gained more by letting this fringe groups in and keeping the big donors out. At the end of the day this benefited both traditional parties and the head of the IRS was a Bush appointment. It looks to me status was given based on money and power not party and at the end of the day that's the scandal that nobody is going to care about.

    Should the same Republican and Democratic senators that took money from these groups who got status investigate this? Seems to me a big conflict of interest. We need a special prosecutor with subpoena power. A Congressional investigation by people who took money from these groups simply can't be trusted.

    The rules were broken when these groups were given status by the IRS they shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Frankly those who are complaining about some small time groups that were kept out are being tooled.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-16-2013 at 08:36 PM.

  3. #43
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,954
    Post Thanks / Like

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,422
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Here's a clue. The IRS during this period was run by a Bush appointment. Status to Karl Rove's group and traditional Republican groups was given immediately and frankly they shouldn't get this status because everyone knows they weren't a charity they were simply hiding their donors.

    Maybe the true beneficiary here was the Republican Party who lost Senate and Congressional seats to Tea Party conservatives.

    It looks to me when the smoke clears the real beneficiary was Karl Rove and the Republican Party who sees the Tea Party and the far right as a threat to them and their business cronies.

    The IRS has no business giving any of these groups tax exempt status or hiding donors looking to manipulate politics. The investigation should include why the IRS gave any of these groups this status and if some groups were given special status for political reasons why and on who's orders. What's really clear which you want to ignore the big donors on both sides got a free ride.

    The Democrats would have gained more by letting this fringe groups in and keeping the big donors out. At the end of the day this benefited both traditional parties and the head of the IRS was a Bush appointment. It looks to me status was given based on money and power not party and at the end of the day that's the scandal that nobody is going to care about.

    Should the same Republican and Democratic senators that took money from these groups who got status investigate this? Seems to me a big conflict of interest. We need a special prosecutor with subpoena power. A Congressional investigation by people who took money from these groups simply can't be trusted.

    The rules were broken when these groups were given status by the IRS they shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Frankly those who are complaining about some small time groups that were kept out are being tooled.
    The quality keeps declining precipitously ^^^^

    Bush is still at fault ...shulman donated to the DNC

    no conservative group were granted status after 2/10 none-501c3 orgs can lobby

    B. Hussein's pro-Muslim half brother obongo got his fake one approved in 10 seconds
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 05-16-2013 at 09:51 PM.

  5. #45
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    It was probably a bunch of flaming fags that work for the IRS.
    WTF, first they let them in the army, now the IRS?

  6. #46
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    The quality keeps declining precipitously ^^^^

    Bush is still at fault ...shulman donated to the DNC

    no conservative group were granted status after 2/10 none-501c3 orgs can lobby

    B. Hussein's pro-Muslim half brother obongo got his fake one approved in 10 seconds
    501(c)(3) Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations Form 9901, 990-EZ8, or 990-PF Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF
    Form 1023 Yes, generally
    And why should any political group Conservative or otherwise get this status under a Bush or Obama appointment?

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    And why should any political group Conservative or otherwise get this status under a Bush or Obama appointment?
    Go talk to the IRS, maybe they can tell you. And while you are at it, maybe you would also like to have them explain why all left wing groups got their designations light years ahead of tea party groups?

  8. #48
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    Go talk to the IRS, maybe they can tell you. And while you are at it, maybe you would also like to have them explain why all left wing groups got their designations light years ahead of tea party groups?
    We know why lefties got their designations ahead of the right we have a lefty in office.

    Why have the Republicans who have been running on tax reform ignored this as part of tax reform? Outrage aside my bet is the incumbents on both sides of the aisle have benefited greatly by the IRS giving these groups the ability to shield their donors from the political process.

    When we have tax reform debated and all the special interests are trying to keep these kinds of deductions in place how do we trust the political system to come up with a fair tax code?

    The reality is since government has been gridlocked and gone from one scandal to another the economy keeps improving. I love this stuff. The more government becomes irrelevant the better off we are. Now if we could just get the Patriot act repealed...That's right that's not scandalous it's bipartisan.

    The Republican grandstanding in Congress about overreach is almost laughable unless of course you believe in this country.

  9. #49
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    We know why lefties got their designations ahead of the right we have a lefty in office.

    Why have the Republicans who have been running on tax reform ignored this as part of tax reform? Outrage aside my bet is the incumbents on both sides of the aisle have benefited greatly by the IRS giving these groups the ability to shield their donors from the political process.

    When we have tax reform debated and all the special interests are trying to keep these kinds of deductions in place how do we trust the political system to come up with a fair tax code?

    The reality is since government has been gridlocked and gone from one scandal to another the economy keeps improving. I love this stuff. The more government becomes irrelevant the better off we are. Now if we could just get the Patriot act repealed...That's right that's not scandalous it's bipartisan.

    The Republican grandstanding in Congress about overreach is almost laughable unless of course you believe in this country.
    There is no such thing as a "fair" tax code. What planet have you been living on? In fact, the very word "TAX" is defined as being a discriminative tariff.

    Until, they introduce a flat tax it will never be fair. And even assuming they did get a flat tax introduced, it still wouldn't be completely fair. It would just be as close to being fair as humanly possible.

    So get the words fair and tax out of the of equation. It's an oxymoron.

  10. #50
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    There is no such thing as a "fair" tax code. What planet have you been living on? In fact, the very word "TAX" is defined as being a discriminative tariff.

    Until, they introduce a flat tax it will never be fair. And even assuming they did get a flat tax introduced, it still wouldn't be completely fair. It would just be as close to being fair as humanly possible.

    So get the words fair and tax out of the of equation. It's an oxymoron.
    I don't agree with you regarding a flat tax but I do agree the entire tax code is a political document that favors some constituents over others. That's why in the context of a lack of action on tax reform I don't see this as a big deal.

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I don't agree with you regarding a flat tax but I do agree the entire tax code is a political document that favors some constituents over others. That's why in the context of a lack of action on tax reform I don't see this as a big deal.
    OK, so if you do not agree on the flat tax method, what would be your approach?

  12. #52
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    OK, so if you do not agree on the flat tax method, what would be your approach?
    3 or 4 brackets, no deductions for anything and passive income treated the same as earned income.

    The government protects property through the courts, defense, bank regulation, SEC, etc., etc. along with regulating commerce. All things that generally provide services to property holders. Pretty good deal for those who are high earners. I have no problem with a graduated income tax. I do think rates should be substantially lower and no deductions at all including health benefits paid by companies, mortgage interest and charitable giving. The government protects property those who earn it should pay more for the services rendered.

    Can't see any reason that a person with little income should pay the same percentage as those who have lots of income. Now that doesn't mean taxes should redistribute income but practically we need revenue to provide government services.

    I also think revenue should be tied to budgets to some degree and that means tax rates need to fluctuate to deal with war, recession, etc.

    Get rid of the deductions and lots of politics goes out of the code.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-17-2013 at 05:12 PM.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Forget about using this for tax reform. There are no deals to be made with this administration. What we need to do is use this to curb Obamacare. The IRS has a big role in Obamacare.

  14. #54
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Forget about using this for tax reform. There are no deals to be made with this administration. What we need to do is use this to curb Obamacare. The IRS has a big role in Obamacare.
    Why not both? We'll never have a more functional and competent government if we don't expect/demand better.

  15. #55
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Why not both? We'll never have a more functional and competent government if we don't expect/demand better.
    Because this administration's definition of tax reform is raising taxes. And quite frankly, I am not confident in the Republican leadership's ability to negotiate.

    But if there is one common thread, it is disdain for the IRS. Perhaps there is a way for Congress to not fund the IRS expansion, thus stunting Obamacare in some way.
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 05-17-2013 at 06:27 PM.

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Because this administration's definition of tax reform is raising taxes. And quite frankly, I am not confident in the Republican leadership's ability to negotiate.

    But if there is one common thread, it is disdain for the IRS. Perhaps there is a way for Congress to not fund the IRS expansion, thus stunting Obamacare in some way.
    I agree with you. My question was more rhetorical than anything else.

    We're not going to see anything meaningful come out of these scandals. It's quite obvious that the only real interest from either side is gaining leverage for future power and control. Democrats do it when Republicans are in charge, Republicans do it when Democrats are in charge, and the people continue to vote for and enable this failure on both sides.

  17. #57
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    3 or 4 brackets, no deductions for anything and passive income treated the same as earned income.

    The government protects property through the courts, defense, bank regulation, SEC, etc., etc. along with regulating commerce. All things that generally provide services to property holders. Pretty good deal for those who are high earners. I have no problem with a graduated income tax. I do think rates should be substantially lower and no deductions at all including health benefits paid by companies, mortgage interest and charitable giving. The government protects property those who earn it should pay more for the services rendered.

    Can't see any reason that a person with little income should pay the same percentage as those who have lots of income. Now that doesn't mean taxes should redistribute income but practically we need revenue to provide government services.

    I also think revenue should be tied to budgets to some degree and that means tax rates need to fluctuate to deal with war, recession, etc.

    Get rid of the deductions and lots of politics goes out of the code.
    In other words, you want people that make MORE money than you, to pay HIGHER taxes. Another guy that thinks Robin Hood was a hero.

    Boy, that's genius, absolutely genius.

    Lets punish everyone chasing and catching the American dream by taxing them up the ying yang.

    And lets go further with this. WHO decides when you start to make "TOO MUCH MONEY"?! Is there a cut off point? Do you know what that cut off point is?!

    I've got news for you, that is the EXACT tax system we have in place right now. It will never work because it has absolutely no basis in logic.

  18. #58
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I earn nothing. My income is all from investments. Those that help employ people and fund civic projects and schools. I get a preferred tax benefit for investments. And should.
    But I pay very high taxes overall as some of my income is taxed at the highest non preferred rate. Including social security which is ALL my money to begin with.
    That's ok. I have accepted that. How about everybody pays tax? A minimum of 5% of the gross. That way everybody is a contributor.
    Unemployed represent a low %, under 10% real, so if no income at all, no tax. Tax unemployment (it should be) and welfare as well. Food stamps too. Hey, it's income.

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainejet View Post
    In other words, you want people that make MORE money than you, to pay HIGHER taxes. Another guy that thinks Robin Hood was a hero.

    Boy, that's genius, absolutely genius.

    Lets punish everyone chasing and catching the American dream by taxing them up the ying yang.

    And lets go further with this. WHO decides when you start to make "TOO MUCH MONEY"?! Is there a cut off point? Do you know what that cut off point is?!

    I've got news for you, that is the EXACT tax system we have in place right now. It will never work because it has absolutely no basis in logic.
    Since a large portion of my income is in the highest tax bracket possible you would be wrong.

    I don't feel punished paying taxes, I feel fortunate that I can.

    Deductions are the root of the evil in our tax code not the progressive nature of it.

    I'm sorry you feel that paying taxes is such a burden. I love the combination of freedom and security to earn that this country and government provides. My taxes went up substantially this year. When I first got the numbers from my accountant I was a little freaked out. That was quickly overcome by a smile. I'm actually doing well and can pay my taxes and contribute to my country and provide for my family. That's not a burden that's a blessing.

    The who is our representatives voted in by the people.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-18-2013 at 12:29 PM.

  20. #60
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    13,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Since a large portion of my income is in the highest tax bracket possible you would be wrong.

    I don't feel punished paying taxes, I feel fortunate that I can.

    Deductions are the root of the evil in our tax code not the progressive nature of it.

    I'm sorry you feel that paying taxes is such a burden. I love the combination of freedom and security to earn that this country and government provides. My taxes went up substantially this year. When I first got the numbers from my accountant I was a little freaked out. That was quickly overcome by a smile. I'm actually doing well and can pay my taxes and contribute to my country and provide for my family. That's not a burden that's a blessing.

    The who is our representatives voted in by the people.
    Listen, first of all, I'd like to apologize to you. I didn't mean to talk down to you. That was in appropriate. You're obviously a generous guy, and that I agree with that wholeheartedly.

    But let me just explain to you why you are wrong.

    I agree with giving to those less fortunate. I like it. I actually get as much personal satisfaction out of it as the recipient, if not more.

    But tell me, "How do you get personal satisfaction out of it when the government is TAKING it?" I know I do not get the personal satisfaction out of it. So how do you?

    Not to mention, that creates LARGER government (which is never a good thing) because they need to put a bunch of government bureaucrats to control it. Which now means that all the money you feel good about giving has been seriously diminished by salaries paid to these bureaucrats that are sure to be living high on the hog.

    Not to mention, that when you simply give something to someone by government, they suddenly feel entitled. They know those food stamps are going to arrive every month. What kind of message does that send? That it's OK to sit back and let someone else pay for you to stay home?

    You get much more personal satisfaction, when you get your paycheck and say to yourself, "I EARNED that money. I did it MYSELF. I don't want any help from government. I'll do it myself. And I certainly do not plan on apologizing for having earned it.

    What about the overwhelming statistic in the last election? In the last election, young people, specifically 90% of 18 to 24 years olds voted for Obama.

    Do you know what that tells you? That means that young people have their hands out. They want to vote for the guy that's going to give them the most free stuff. Do you honestly think that is a good thing to teach young people? That as time goes on, we will become more and more of a SOCIALIST society?

    Government is not around to give people free sh*t. It's around to provide very simple services and that is actually backed up in the constitution.

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