There is a massive, massive difference between the following:
1. If you choose to participate in interstate commerce by establishing a trucking company, you are required to purchase insurance to protect potential victims who are endangered by your activities, and
2. If you are born you are required to buy insurance to protect yourself.
If we are going to allow the latter, why not have government-mandated meals and exercise? Or how about a fax tax if you don't exercise sufficiently to stay within healthy weight estimates?
There is a massive, massive difference between the following:
1. If you choose to participate in interstate commerce by establishing a trucking company, you are required to purchase insurance to protect potential victims who are endangered by your activities, and
2. If you are born you are required to buy insurance to protect yourself.
If we are going to allow the latter, why not have government-mandated meals and exercise? Or how about a fax tax if you don't exercise sufficiently to stay within healthy weight estimates?
You both miss the point. How does one determine if an entity is political or not? How does one determine if that entitie's primary purpose is non political? You are asking the IRS to perform an action it was never intended to do, which is to investigate non monitory related activities. Random audits/samples isn't how the IRS does it's job (as far as I can tell).
Well yes, that's the Fox version of it. The fact remains, however, that we know the IRS targeted both left- and right-wing groups. For example, besides the "Tea Party" BOLO, we know the IRS had at least one BOLO list with "progressive" on it. We also know that apparently only three political groups' applications were rejected. All were left-wing organizations. So, unless your "one side of the political spectrum" meant left-wing, your presumptions about this story are not supported by the evidence.[ ... ]
What happened in this case has nothing to do with lack of resources or inability to handle non-monetary oversight/investigation, because those issues would have manifested themselves across all applications, not just those from one side of the political spectrum. This had to be a concerted effort to target groups based on political affiliation, and the more information that gets released the more obvious that targeting becomes to all but the most hardened partisan hacks.
Doubling down on your lies, I see. The 297 applications targeted for additional scrutiny were not just conservative groups. There is also absolutely zero evidence that all conservative groups were targeted. No matter how much you need to fuel your persecution complex, all of the actual evidence to date shows the IRS was focused on groups that were likely to engage in excessive political activities, beyond what was allowed for 501(c)(4)s. Further, the evidence shows the IRS was targeting both right- and left-wing groups. Your lies don't magically become true just because you parrot them over and over.
Well yes, that's the Fox version of it. The fact remains, however, that we know the IRS targeted both left- and right-wing groups.
That means nothing. We've seen examples of extreme and absurd questions and demands as part of the scrutiny of right wing groups, with no such examples on the left wing groups. When a group finally just gives up and says "nevermind" it doesn't count as "rejected", even though that's the same result.For example, besides the "Tea Party" BOLO, we know the IRS had at least one BOLO list with "progressive" on it. We also know that apparently only three political groups' applications were rejected.
Sorry, I don't watch fox, so you can drop the dumb "fox version" nonsense.
No, the fact is we know for certain they targeted conservative groups, after
Who is this "we"? You have a mouse in your pocket?
"We" know the IRS targetted far right corrupt wingnut groups with possible links to terrorism (not proven). "Our" preference would have been imprisonment for the right wing fiends, but loss of tax-exempt status is satisfactory as well.
There is an entire division of the IRS devoted to this exact thing.You both miss the point. How does one determine if an entity is political or not? How does one determine if that entitie's primary purpose is non political? You are asking the IRS to perform an action it was never intended to do, which is to investigate non monitory related activities. Random audits/samples isn't how the IRS does it's job (as far as I can tell).
Well said.Of all the scandals that have rocked this administration, the IRS scandal is the one that makes me the angriest. I am a conservative but I would be just as angry if any Gubmit employee used their position to hinder or otherwise damage a political group or person because that group or person did not agree with the views of the Gubmit employee. It plain and very simple terms, this is tyranny.
I want to see a full blown investigation to make sure that the facts are sound but if people or individuals in the gubmit are found guilty of mis-using the IRS and its resources to target the Tea Party or anyone else, those groups\people should face fines, loss of employment and possibly jail time if the crimes are sever enough to warrant jail time.
Tyranny has no place in a democracy. Neither does corruption. Unfortunately, both are rampant in our Gubmit but when we find either, we need to investigate and eliminate both.
There is currently zero evidence that more than seven groups were left-wing, as you yourself have pointed out. Democrats are attempting to confuse the issue by referencing some BOLOs for 501(c)(3) groups and the IRS has made some statements about both right- and left-wing groups, but absent the backup which the IRS has refused to provide, neither is evidence.Doubling down on your lies, I see. The 297 applications targeted for additional scrutiny were not just conservative groups. There is also absolutely zero evidence that all conservative groups were targeted. No matter how much you need to fuel your persecution complex, all of the actual evidence to date shows the IRS was focused on groups that were likely to engage in excessive political activities, beyond what was allowed for 501(c)(4)s. Further, the evidence shows the IRS was targeting both right- and left-wing groups. Your lies don't magically become true just because you parrot them over and over.
That would indeed. Purely coincidentally, the IRS has steadfastly refused to provide that list.Is there a breakdown anywhere of the 300 applications that were targeted?
Looking at those statistics will provide an indication if certain types of groups were filtered.
Dude, you're off message. The current left-wing nuttery is that the IRS did not target right wing groups, it was all just a big accident in the pursuit of efficiency. But thanks for displaying the next step, imprisoning those who deviate from the government marching orders.Who is this "we"? You have a mouse in your pocket?
"We" know the IRS targetted far right corrupt wingnut groups with possible links to terrorism (not proven). "Our" preference would have been imprisonment for the right wing fiends, but loss of tax-exempt status is satisfactory as well.
Irrelevent. Your narrative comes straight from the RNC, as created by Darrell Issa. It doesn't matter which of their propaganda relays is your favorite.Sorry, I don't watch fox, so you can drop the dumb "fox version" nonsense.
Sure there would have been an issue, because the right needs "scandals" to use against Obama, and any action that affects them negatively has been attacked no matter how fairly and legally it's been administered. Fox and it's ilk have been pushing such noise non-stop ever since Obama was elected.No, the fact is we know for certain they targeted conservative groups, after which there have been subsequent claims that leftist groups were also targeted. Of course if you hit 90% of one and 10% of the other, that still counts as "also targeted". If "both groups" were targeted equally, there would not have been any issue,
That's an interesting discussion of its own, and there is a thread that is more focused on Lerner specifically. Given Issa's statements presuming criminal action and the generally dishonest way he's run his witch hunt, I suspect any attorney would push his client to plead the Fifth. There would seem to be no upside for Lerner to testify, and a tremendous risk that anything she did say would be perverted into something else. What I'd really like to know is how well she has cooperated with the FBI.and Lerner wouldn't have had to quit and plead the 5th right?
False. That's another example of you being duped by Fox and its ilk. There were left-wing groups that reported the same sort of intrusive review. There are a couple of differences, however. First, Issa didnt invite them to testify, and Fox and its ilk didn't give it saturation coverage (if they covered it at all) because it's inconvenient to their narrative. Second, those left-wing groups don't have a get-Obama agenda, and don't have an attorney working with Issa to turn them into a victim of the week story.That means nothing. We've seen examples of extreme and absurd questions and demands as part of the scrutiny of right wing groups, with no such examples on the left wing groups. When a group finally just gives up and says "nevermind" it doesn't count as "rejected", even though that's the same result.
Yes, yes, those are great talking points. That's part of the RNC strategy, spreading lots of vague allegations and innuendo. It's impossible to address such a smear with facts because there's nothing specific. So, be specific. Cite specific examples.If nothing else, the foot dragging, stalling, refusal to cooperate, pleading the 5th etc by those involved should be a huge red flag that something bad was going on. If there was nothing inappropriate going on, it would have been a very easy matter to clear up by simply providing all the relevant information and say "see, nothing going on". That obviously isn't happening, and time and again we've seen documents ultimately contradicting the 'official' story of what was going on (like the "just rogue agents in Cincinnati" story was shown to be BS by recent disclosures).
Oh well. It's an amusing allegation given that I'm the one who keeps citing facts while pubbies like you ignore those facts and instead rely on supposition and innuendo. It's amusing that I am working to make things worse for Obama (by refuting the claim that 60% of the targeted groups were not conservative), yet I'm simultaneously an extreme partisan liberal. As I told Werepossum, you guys need to get your spin straight. If you are truly so compelled to rail at partisans, however, you need only find a mirror.You are one of the "extreme partisans" I was referring to. Either you're ok with the notion that the IRS is used as an attack dog against conservative groups, or you pretend that you are not and are simply willfully blind to the reality in this case.
Uh, that's EXACTLY how the IRS does it's job. They simply don't have the resources to audit every return or investigate every filing. What they do instead is to create a set of triggers and algorithms that flag a certain percentage of returns for further review / scrutiny. A percentage of those flagged returns actually ends up getting audited (and audits can range from a simple question for the filer to clarify to an in-depth analysis of everything).
The IRS is perfectly capable of dealing with non monetary activities, they do it all the time, and there are extensive guidelines and procedures to cover just about any situation.
What happened in this case has nothing to do with lack of resources or inability to handle non-monetary oversight/investigation, because those issues would have manifested themselves across all applications, not just those from one side of the political spectrum. This had to be a concerted effort to target groups based on political affiliation, and the more information that gets released the more obvious that targeting becomes to all but the most hardened partisan hacks.
-snip-
False. That's another example of you being duped by Fox and its ilk. There were left-wing groups that reported the same sort of intrusive review.
The Internal Revenue Service scrutinized “progressive” groups less harshly than conservative groups, the Treasury Inspector General said in a letter to Congress this week.
J. Russell George, the investigator who carried out a probe into the IRS’ targeting of groups that applied for tax-exempt status, said he did not limit his investigation to tea party groups.
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in a letter to House Ways and Means ranking Democrat Rep. Sandy Levin.
The revelations come after Democrats seized on a set of redacted spreadsheets released this week that detailed the “Be On The Lookout,” or BOLO, criteria used by the IRS tax-exempt group to screen applications. On that list was “progressive” as well as “tea party.”
Although “tea party” applications were sent to a team of specialists that looked into potential political cases, Russell says, “progressive” groups were sent to a different team within the IRS for processing.
Such as?
Link please.
There's no question the IRS was engaged in inappropriate behavior, possibly even criminal. The question is to what extent and who was involved.
Still waiting for the IRS to produce the list of orgs subjected to the intrusive review that was subpoenaed a year or so ago.
Fern
A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527). A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.
Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees, "Super PACs", and political parties are "527s." However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not "expressly advocate" for the election or defeat of a candidate or party.
There are no upper limits on contributions to 527s and no restrictions on who may contribute. There are no spending limits imposed on these organizations; however, they must register with the IRS, publicly disclose their donors and file periodic reports of contributions and expenditures.[1]
Such as 501(c) organizations. Examine the forms for application of tax exempt status (IIRC Form 1024 and related schedules) and the annual 990 series for yourself.
Fern
Hilfuckinglarious. You are all upset because the IRS investigated:
The fact that a beast as hideous as the 527 is allowed free rein to shred our democracy from the shadows doesn't bother you in the slightest. Anything to aid the oligarchy... right bro?
Are you fucking dense? 501(c)'s must report any income, just like anyone else that received an income, what the fuck that has to do with whether or not an organization's primary purpose is non political and how the IRS would determine that, I have no idea.
But I suspect the point is lost on you.
Originally Posted by ivwshane View Post
You both miss the point. How does one determine if an entity is political or not? How does one determine if that entitie's primary purpose is non political? You are asking the IRS to perform an action it was never intended to do, which is to investigate non monitory related activities. Random audits/samples isn't how the IRS does it's job (as far as I can tell).
The IRS must never be used as an attack dog against anyone ... except those breaking the law. I strongly suspect that's the real reason for all this wing-nut angst against the IRS, that they were quite properly finding that many right-wing groups were fraudulently misrepresenting the amount and nature of their politicking.
There have been at least a few felonies committed, leaking of non-public information about donors to conservative groups. Unfortunately for the republic, the IRS and "Justice" have taken the bizarro world interpretation that the laws making tax information private also protect those IRS employees who illegally give out that information.Link please.
Plus, I'll leave this here:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...irs-softer-on-progressives-than-tea-partiers/
There's no question the IRS was engaged in inappropriate behavior, possibly even criminal. The question is to what extent and who was involved.
Still waiting for the IRS to produce the list of orgs subjected to the intrusive review that was subpoenaed a year or so ago.
Fern
For sure. Of course the IRS is suspicious that anti-gubmint groups might be doing anti-gubmint things under whatever cover they could find. And it's only natural that the people financing such groups would want to remain anonymous.
Anybody who thinks that Teatards aren't anti-gubmint needs to have their head examined.
There have been at least a few felonies committed, leaking of non-public information about donors to conservative groups.
Oh look, another person who thinks the govt should persecute its political opponents. You sound as though you secretly admire Richard Nixon.
So you're claiming the TEA Party wants to overthrow the US govt?
I thought they merely wanted it to be smaller.
Fern
Um, blow me. The FACT has been cited here before and widely discussed.Cite the statute or STFU.
Um, blow me. The FACT has been cited here before and widely discussed.