Refusing to grant special privileges for homosexual relationships(which is what marriage is) is not "attacking homosexuals"
Depends. When do you want to stop beating your wife?
You clearly give many shits about homosexual relationships considering how much support you have for people who attack people's right to have them. You make more effort than anyone on this board (even Texashiker) to attack homosexuals at every opportunity. It might even surpass your attacks on women's rights (which are numerous). So if you "refused to give a shit" you certainly wouldn't put more effort into attacking homosexuals than anyone else on this board puts into attacking anything else except for maybe stewox's attacks on sanity.
When do you want to start handing out the pink triangles that homosexuals are forced to wear and then start moving them into the ghettos?
I have a question. Why were documents relevant to the IRS investigation withheld for a year?I don't have to read the OP's article, to know that the Repubs can't spin the ACA anymore and carry on about "Obamacare", so now they turn to this as a last ditch effort to make a stink and keep this things going. There is absolutely no evidence that the IRS targeted specifically Republicans or Teaparty people alone, they went after both sides, the Progressives and the conservatives. The Repubs are going to end up falling flat on their face with this just like they did with the ACA.
It is such an obvious "Witchhunt" and big Dog and Pony Show. This is to keep it in the spot light and let those who follow them in their base keep beating their war drums.
I have a question. Why were documents relevant to the IRS investigation withheld for a year?
BSBenghazi.
Birth certificate.
Yadda-yadda-yadda; liberals.
This story is comparing the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for random individuals. That's a totally invalid comparison. A valid comparison would be between the audit rate for Tea Party donors to the audit rate for equivalent donors to PACs of all political affiliations.
The IRS has confidential, automatic audit algorithms in place, and returns with specific KINDS and LEVELS of income and deductions (and with threshold ratios of certain kinds of deductions to AGI) attract a lot more audits than returns without those features.
So to have a valid complaint that Tea Party donors are being unfairly targeted purely because of their political affiliation you need to demonstrate that (say) donors to liberal PACS that have the same types, levels, and ratios of donations and deductions are subjected to significantly lower audit rates.
Do you have this type of information? I thought not.
I took Shira's comments to mean that ideally major donors to both left and right not-for-profits would have the same audit rates based on their inherently more complicated financial reports and tax filings, not based on the fact of their donations. As in, if one is contributing tens of thousands to a not-for-profit on either side, one is probably not filing the short form, or the long form writing off mortgage interest and medical expenses only. I do see your point, but if major donors to both left and right not-for-profits have the same audit rate which is significantly higher than the general taxpayer population, that doesn't necessarily mean they are being punished for the donations. One would have to know the rate on everyone with similar tax filings versus those with big donations.I would have a problem with this (meaning both sides subjected to audits merely for donating).
The name of charitable organization is listed on the tax return. The IRS has a database of approved charitable orgs. The IRS can easily verify the validity of the deduction. I see no reason whatsoever to audit people for donating to IRS approved orgs. There is no valid purpose. It will dissuade people from donating.
Are we really trying to get to the point where only corporations can donate without fear of repercussion?
Fern
Totally agree (though I don't know that I would necessarily call for jail time - that would depend on the severity of the problem and what the evidence was regarding their intent).
Well said. Abuse of power should always be harshly punished.Abusing the powers of government to target people or groups with the intention to harm because of political differences should most definitely get jail time.
How many thousands are locked up for crimes with no victim and they only have the power of a plebian?
No, greater power must come with greater punishment if abused. Time to restore the republic, and just the threat of jail time would help a great deal to reduce corruption, I hope. As long as the DA and courts are objective and act in good faith of course.
I can't speak to the IRS specifically, but that's not how one devises a statistically sound sampling system to detect noncompliance. Instead, one analyzes the data and identifies correlations. What I would expect the IRS to do is use the data from their random audits to identify statistical correlations between behaviors and noncompliance. Their audit selections would then be driven objectively, where returns with the highest correlation scores move to the top of the audit list.I would have a problem with this (meaning both sides subjected to audits merely for donating).
The name of charitable organization is listed on the tax return. The IRS has a database of approved charitable orgs. The IRS can easily verify the validity of the deduction. I see no reason whatsoever to audit people for donating to IRS approved orgs. There is no valid purpose. It will dissuade people from donating.
Are we really trying to get to the point where only corporations can donate without fear of repercussion?
Edit: Also, and to put it a different way, there is no reason that donors should be subjected to higher audit rates. I.e., something is wrong here.
Fern
Well said. Abuse of power should always be harshly punished.
Yep, and that's a good idea. We'd still be paying the premiums though.Unfortunately our countries collective antipathy has allowed the opposite to not only happen regularly, but to be both simply expected and accepted.
The fact that a law enforcement officer who say kills the wrong person can go on paid leave while a "settlement" is reached and then paid for by us, the taxpayers is heinous.
Doctors have malpractice insurance, why not require the same of any gun carrying law enforcement officer?
Though with the politicization of the IRS, I don't know how any generated numbers can be trusted.
And if that bore any slight resemblance to what actually happened, your point would be relevant.A common property of all conspiracy theories is to assume facts not in evidence. That statement is a prime example. It's not political at all for the IRS to avoid allowing tax exempt status to political money laundering operations of any political persuasion.
And if that bore any slight resemblance to what actually happened, your point would be relevant.
Must have been damned inconvenient for you when the IRS admitted malfeasance. I mean it would have been, were that capable of seeping in.
If they did nothing wrong, why are they worried about being audited?
hahahha another conspiracy nut goofball...roflBenghazi.
Birth certificate.
Yadda-yadda-yadda; liberals.
Two pretty huge assumptions built into this post of yours. Think I'll wait for the results of an independent audit before I come to any conclusions.Abusing the powers of government to target people or groups with the intention to harm because of political differences should most definitely get jail time.
How many thousands are locked up for crimes with no victim and they only have the power of a plebian?
No, greater power must come with greater punishment if abused. Time to restore the republic, and just the threat of jail time would help a great deal to reduce corruption, I hope. As long as the DA and courts are objective and act in good faith of course.
Does anyone want the next republican president to use the IRS in this manner?
FTFYAs I see it repubs are pissed because if any of the truths came out during Obama's reelection campaign, Obama would not be the the POTUS right now. So, yes, some of us see this as a manipulation to effect the outcome of an election. If we ever get to the bottom of both the alleged IRS and alleged Benghazi scandals, history may show that the election was stolen away from Mitt. It's pretty easy to see the motives involved, although the lefties will never admit it. Same cries would be called if this happened during a repub's reelection campaign, for exactly the same reasons, but would be coming from the dems. Both parties are capable of their witch hunts....just depends on which political hat is worn by the leader at the time.
If they did nothing wrong, why are they worried about being audited?
This comment from the OP link has it nailed:
Democrat Play Book on scandals...
Week 1 - Refuse to answer any questions. Immediately queue up the lap dog media to run interference.
Week 2 - Refuse to answer any questions, change the subject. Turn the gain up on the lap dog media.
Week 3 - Announce that everything has been answered, its time to "move forward", and state that no further questions on the subject will be answered.
Week 4 - Call it a "phony scandal" and highlight the fact that it never really happened in the first place. It was merely a miscommunication problem.
Week 5 - Accuse Republicans of trying to resurrect a phony scandal, and ask what difference at this point does it make anyway? Place a friendly call to the IRS for "assistance"
Week 6 - Accuse anyone asking the same questions that have never been answered about the phony scandal that doesn't matter any way, of being a racist.
Man why cant we get some real scandals out of this administration, like lying to go to war and stuff like torture.
This is real amateur hour material. Come on Obama, get your act together!