Hopefully it will have an impact on the way the House, Senate and the public treats the IRS.
Yet this will not have any impact in the way the IRS treats taxpayers.
Heh. The extreme left? Has the IRS called for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Collectivization?
You have no idea what the terms you use actually mean- you just want to vilify anybody not of the right-wing fringe-whack faithful, the adherents of Teahad.
Repeated challenges have been issued to provide evidence (not innuendo) that this goes any higher than the Cincinnati office. None has been forthcoming, which means there probably isn't any.
It's the same story as all of Issa's past pandering to the paranoid fringe- he's the modern equivalent of Smokin' Joe McCarthy.
Aug. 9, 2010: In Texas, President Obama for the first time publicly names a group he is obsessed with—Americans for Prosperity (founded by the Koch Brothers)—and warns about conservative groups. Taking up a cry that had until then largely been confined to left-wing media and activists, he says: "Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Aug. 11: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends out a fundraising email warning about "Karl Rove-inspired shadow groups."
Aug. 21: Mr. Obama devotes his weekly radio address to the threat of "attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don't know who's behind these ads and we don't know who's paying for them. . . . You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation. . . . The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."
Week of Aug. 23: The New Yorker's Jane Mayer authors a hit piece on the Koch brothers, entitled "Covert Operations," in which she accuses them of funding "political front groups." The piece repeats the White House theme, with Ms. Mayer claiming the Kochs have created "slippery organizations with generic-sounding names" that have "made it difficult to ascertain the extent of their influence in Washington."
Aug. 27: White House economist Austan Goolsbee, in a background briefing with reporters, accuses Koch industries of being a pass-through entity that does "not pay corporate income tax." The Treasury inspector general investigates how it is that Mr. Goolsbee might have confidential tax information. The report has never been released.
This same week, the Democratic Party files a complaint with the IRS claiming the Americans for Prosperity Foundation is violating its tax-exempt status.
Sept. 2: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns on its website that the Kochs have "funneled their money into right-wing shadow groups."
Sept. 16: Mr. Obama, in Connecticut, repeats that a "foreign-controlled entity" might be funding "millions of dollars of attack ads." Four days later, in Philadelphia, he again says the problem is that "nobody knows" who is behind conservative groups.
Sept. 21: Sam Stein, in his Huffington Post article "Obama, Dems Try to Make Shadowy Conservative Groups a Problem for Conservatives," writes that a "senior administration official" had "urged a small gathering of reporters to start writing on what he deemed 'the most insidious power grab that we have seen in a very long time.' "
Sept. 22: In New York City, Mr. Obama warns that conservative groups "pose as non-for-profit, social welfare and trade groups," even though they are "guided by seasoned Republican political operatives" who might be funded by a "foreign-controlled corporation."
Sept. 26: On ABC's "This Week," Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declares outright that the "benign-sounding Americans for Prosperity, the American Crossroads Fund" are "front groups for foreign-controlled companies."
Sept. 28: The president, in Wisconsin, again warns about conservative organizations "posing as nonprofit groups." Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, writes to the IRS demanding it investigate nonprofits. The letter names conservative organizations.
On Oct. 14, Mr. Obama calls these groups "a problem for democracy." On Oct. 22, he slams those who "hide behind these front groups." On Oct. 25, he upgrades them to a "threat to our democracy." On Oct. 26, he decries groups engaged in "unsupervised spending."
These were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were repeated by the White House and echoed by its allies in campaign events, emails, social media and TV ads.
Isn't it the IRS that's asking
Are you now a member or have you ever been a member of the Tea Party?
I'm glad to see that i'm not the only one seeing the resemblance to McCarthyism in what is going on with this administration and the IRS. You just direct it at Issa and I direct it at Obama and the IRS.
You've answered your own question, of course. They do have something to hide. They don't want to be accountable for corrupting our government. Evil prefers to hide in the shadows.The IRS conducts public hearings backed by sympatico media coverage? They lie on national TV about people standing in the same room, a la Issa? They flit from contrived "outrage" to empty "outrage" as scurrilous attack vectors, desperately obfuscating the facts about funding of right wing groups?
Where does the money come from, anyway? Would Teahadists even care if they found out they're being manipulated, astroturfed into supporting interests contrary to their own?
Are they smart enough to care or even notice?
The answer, as I offered earlier, is to require that all non-profits reveal the sources of their funding if they engage in political activities at all.
Why would anybody be opposed to that if they have nothing to hide?
The IRS conducts public hearings backed by sympatico media coverage? They lie on national TV about people standing in the same room, a la Issa? They flit from contrived "outrage" to empty "outrage" as scurrilous attack vectors, desperately obfuscating the facts about funding of right wing groups?
Where does the money come from, anyway? Would Teahadists even care if they found out they're being manipulated, astroturfed into supporting interests contrary to their own?
Are they smart enough to care or even notice?
The answer, as I offered earlier, is to require that all non-profits reveal the sources of their funding if they engage in political activities at all.
Why would anybody be opposed to that if they have nothing to hide?
Exactly.Why should you care if I search your car, your computer, your home or your family .........if you have nothing to hide?
Being targeted by lefty activists is a good reason why donors should be anonymous.
-snip-
Why would anybody be opposed to that if they have nothing to hide?
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my Administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior.
Ronald Reagan speech to the American people regarding the Iran Contra scandal.
Quote:
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my Administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior.
Why should you care if I search your car, your computer, your home or your family .........if you have nothing to hide?
Being targeted by lefty activists is a good reason why donors should be anonymous.
Because they don't want to face 'political' retaliation and targeted by:
The IRS just 'suddenly' dropping by and doing audits of their personal and business income tax returns. Even if a "no chenge" is determined it costs thousands of $'s in fees, not to mention the hassle and stress etc.
The EPA dropping by for on site audits etc.
The BATF doing the same.
The FBI also.
The IRS 'accidentally' releasing your confidential info.
The IRS taking your list of contributors, BoD etc and auditing each of them
These are claims in the media and/or in in Congressional testimony.
To suppress all one needs is the perception of persecution.
Fern
A bit different than:
I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything.
from the Obama.
Heh. Quote me where I defended the Cincinnati office of the IRS.
I thought you were going to put up or shut up. So far, you've done neither, and likely never will.
You implied and attacked me for saying it was higher up. But keep being a good jihadist though.
Remarkable how paranoia leads people to believe that Presidential ideology, influence & meddling are omnipresent. That was only true during the Bush years...
The Federal Govt is a big & often self-directed bureaucracy, with many parts of it acting in a semi-autonomous fashion as afforded by statute. It's not like the left hand always knows what the right is doing, other than in the minds of conspiracy freaks & addicts.
What's remarkable is that you're so much in the Democrat party pocket that you support these types of abuses as long as they're directed at your political opposition.
Take some deep breaths, then go and look for your integrity.
Integrity, sir? Might want to wipe that Issa spooge off from around your mouth before talking that way...
You've gone down on every one of his trumped up scandals the way a street hooker goes down for a Benjamin.
It's already *obvious* if unproveable where Teahadist funding originates- so all of that could already happen, but it isn't.
You assume Right Wing Authoritarian headset & methods from people who don't have it. It's called projection.
Hahaha
You can't prove it, but claim it's true.
We have actual people with the documents etc to substantiate the numerous audits I listed and their testimony, yet you criticize me for listing it? You can post the unproven as true yet object to me posting claims and I didn't even claim they were true.
BTW: There is nothing as authoritative as a progressive or Liberal. After all, it's for our own good.
Fern
And you still haven't substantiated that claim in the slightest. But it's what you want to believe, so you believe it, because you don't think straight. You're a sucker for Truthiness, as are all Teahadis.
Issa & the rest of the Right Wing noise machine pander to it quite ruthlessly, manipulating your headset at will. They have you all dialed in, triangulated, set up to receive. They know right where your buttons are, and push them with their eyes closed. And you love it, anticipate it, the way Pavlov's dogs waited for the dinner bell.
He's as bad as Charles. The right wing is evil; therefore anything harmful done to them is good by definition. At least he's consistent; if one has no right to decide what's for lunch, then assuredly one can have no right to privacy.Hahaha
You can't prove it, but claim it's true.
We have actual people with the documents etc to substantiate the numerous audits I listed and their testimony, yet you criticize me for listing it? You can post the unproven as true yet object to me posting claims and I didn't even claim they were true.
BTW: There is nothing as authoritative as a progressive or Liberal. After all, it's for our own good.
Fern
Jhhnn is unfortunately symbolic of many on the far left. They consider conservatives and traditional Americans so evil that no room remains for any other evil. Therefore teahadist is an appropriate term but jihadist is hate speech because people who intentionally murder children for religion cannot compare to the evil of people who oppose gay marriage for religion. It's a blind, unreasoning hatred.What is a "teahadist"? Why can't you say radical Islamist but you can say teahadist? You're a hypocrite and because of double standards.
You probably got your ass kicked real good by a Conservative and that's why you hate them so much. Also if this happened to your precious media matters and naacp you would be outraged and demanding answers.