If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Okay, this IRS thing actually kinda IS a scandal, and with any luck that means the GOP will focus on that and finally STFU about Benghazi   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 286
    More: Obvious, GOP, Benghazi, IRS, Nixon White House, articles of impeachment, Carl Bernstein, house oversight committee, scandals  
•       •       •

1829 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 May 2013 at 4:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



286 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-13 02:06:59 PM
It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.
 
2013-05-13 02:16:13 PM
Was the "unlikely" tag broken?
 
2013-05-13 02:16:25 PM
Nope.  they need to pin something on Hillary or one of their other 2016 threats.  this isn't going to help them with that.
 
2013-05-13 02:23:03 PM

ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.


Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."
 
2013-05-13 02:27:36 PM

ggowins: none of the applications were rejected


They've really lowered the bar on "scandal" these days. In my day, something actually had to happen for it to be considered a scandal.
 
2013-05-13 02:34:44 PM

HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."


To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.
 
2013-05-13 02:38:06 PM

ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."

To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.


So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.
 
2013-05-13 02:45:14 PM

HoustonNick: ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."

To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.

So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.


I'm not relying on either.  Just like the Congressman from Michigan threw out one scenario, I posted another.
 
2013-05-13 02:49:19 PM

MrBallou: ggowins: none of the applications were rejected

They've really lowered the bar on "scandal" these days. In my day, something actually had to happen for it to be considered a scandal.


at a bare minimum you should have:

1) something that happened (a victim or some type of impact to someone)
2) criminal wrong doing behind just not doing a good job
3) a link to a person in power (if political a link to said political person)
 
2013-05-13 02:57:58 PM

ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."

To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.

So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.

I'm not relying on either.  Just like the Congressman from Michigan threw out one scenario, I posted another.


So you agree the Congressman from Michigan MIGHT be right?  Just as you might be right?
 
2013-05-13 03:00:39 PM

HoustonNick: ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."

To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.

So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.

I'm not relying on either.  Just like the Congressman from Michigan threw out one scenario, I posted another.

So you agree the Congressman from Michigan MIGHT be right?  Just as you might be right?


I didn't say he was wrong, I said I didn't take what he said at face value.  Just like you aren't taking what I'm saying at face value.
 
2013-05-13 03:38:09 PM

HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday."


That may be what Michigan Rep Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday".  It isn't necessarily what the actual conclusion that the IRS came to was.  I believe someone from the IRS apologized for it happening, but I haven't  seen any other reference to the IRS saying that it was "intimidation of political groups", just that it was inappropriate.
 
2013-05-13 04:14:50 PM

HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."


He didn't say they were justified, he said he was offering a plausible scenario by which it happened. These are different.
If I go home, and see my wife banging some other dude, I might decide to shoot that other dude. That is a plausible scenario by which it could have happened but that doesn't mean it's justified.
 
2013-05-13 04:21:30 PM
It's a scandal, but it's a scandal that doesn't go up to Obama.  Republicans don't care if they can't play politics.
 
2013-05-13 04:23:14 PM

ikanreed: It's a scandal, but it's a scandal that doesn't go up to Obama.  Republicans don't care if they can't play politics.


More importantly, it can't be linked to Hillary.
 
2013-05-13 04:24:12 PM

HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?


Yes. With as much as these guys tried to blur the line between church, PAC, and straight-up business, if they did not check out every single organization that claimed some connection, I'd have thought them remiss.
 
2013-05-13 04:25:01 PM

ManateeGag: Nope.  they need to pin something on Hillary or one of their other 2016 threats.  this isn't going to help them with that.


Hillary accepted "full responsibility" a few weeks or so after the attacks, so that donkey's got her tail pinned on.

...right?
 
2013-05-13 04:26:05 PM
I don't get it.......an tax exempt organization cannot lobby.  Organizations with political messages in their titles are more likely to lobby.  This sounds like logical profiling.  Conservatives don't seem to mind when brown people are profiled.
 
2013-05-13 04:26:05 PM
I'm skeptical that every tea party group filled this out completely and perfectly.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1024.pdf
 
2013-05-13 04:26:28 PM
Three things I'm wondering here:

1. I was told (repeatedly) by right wing media outlets that TEA party groups weren't conservative. I thought they were a mix of liberal and conservative people who were only concerned about taxes and the budget. Were they lying to me? Are they all now admitting that TEA party groups are only conservative? I think that would be a very important factor in all this....

2. Does anyone actually think these groups deserved tax exempt status? I mean, even if they did focus on TEA party groups, it's not like they denied anyone tax exempt status that actually deserved it, did they? If they had denied conservative groups tax exempt status when those groups were actually eligible for it, that would be one thing, but NOBODY is claiming they did that, are they?

3. How does this reflect poorly on Obama? The guy in charge of this whole "scandal" was a Bush Appointee. Further, the man has already left the position of IRS Commissioner. Shouldn't this reflect poorly on Bush, rather than Obama?
 
2013-05-13 04:26:32 PM

HoustonNick: To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.

So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.


Can't help but notice you responded in no way to what I bolded. Now, why don't you ask yourself  why tea party groups would incorporate en masse as 501(c)(4) in the wake of  Citizens United, and in the lead-up to the 2012 election, and ask yourself,  is this  really something Republicans should be hammering on in the media right now?
 
2013-05-13 04:28:17 PM
A second scandal has hit the Obama Administration!
 
2013-05-13 04:28:17 PM
If I were looking to expose a scandal, I would pick something that involved Obama in some sort of wrongdoing.......but that's just me.
 
2013-05-13 04:29:05 PM
It amazes me how hard some people will work to either A) make some things a bigger deal than they are or B) summarily dismiss some things that are bigger than they will admit.
 
2013-05-13 04:29:08 PM

Citrate1007: I don't get it.......an tax exempt organization cannot lobby.  Organizations with political messages in their titles are more likely to lobby.  This sounds like logical profiling.  Conservatives don't seem to mind when brown people are profiled.


Brown people tend not to vote (R).  That's the sole reason for the push for new voter ID laws.
 
2013-05-13 04:29:12 PM
I think we found our new "scandal" representative.

/I miss 16.5
 
2013-05-13 04:29:46 PM

unlikely: HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?

Yes. With as much as these guys tried to blur the line between church, PAC, and straight-up business, if they did not check out every single organization that claimed some connection, I'd have thought them remiss.


By June 2011, the unit had flagged over 100 Tea Party-related applications and the criteria used to scrutinize organizations had grown considerably, flagging not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in group names, but also groups that were working on issues like "government debt," "taxes" and even organizations making statements that "criticize how the country is being run."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-con se rvatives-in-2010/

I'm left leaning, and even I find this disturbing.  Trying to pass this off like the IRS wasn't specifically targeting conservative groups in general is being very disingenuous.  I won't defend a government organization who is doing shiat like this, no matter what my political leanings are.
 
2013-05-13 04:30:05 PM
Watch the thugs from Chicago in action.  This is how they do business in Obamaland. Disgraceful.
 
2013-05-13 04:30:11 PM
This is Obama's Windows 8.
 
2013-05-13 04:31:06 PM
Don't worry, subby, they'll find a way to tie the two together.

/you know they will
 
2013-05-13 04:31:11 PM
This is Obama's Benghazi.
 
2013-05-13 04:31:17 PM

HoustonNick: ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: HoustonNick: ggowins: It isn't too far-fetched of a scenario where back when the tea parties sprung up, the IRS got a bunch of incorrectly submitted applications for tax-exempt status.   Since it was one office apparently that processed all of these applications, they took note of that and were instructed to pay closer attention to applications for tea party groups, based on the number of previous applications that contained errors or were ineligible.    Since none of the applications were rejected, this seems pretty plausible.

Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?  Apparently the IRS investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

"The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups," Michigan Rep. Mike Rogers told "Fox News Sunday." "I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."

To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.

So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.

I'm not relying on either.  Just like the Congressman from Michigan threw out one scenario, I posted another.

So you agree the Congressman from Michigan MIGHT be right?  Just as you might be right?


I sincerely doubt a Republican Congressman could actually be right about anything. They have a track record about being wrong, ignorant, dishonest or all of the above, especially when talking to their brainless minions through their propaganda channel. This isn't to say that random Farker is correct, just that there is a higher probability.
 
2013-05-13 04:32:03 PM
If all this is accurate then somebody, probably several somebodies in Cincinnati are in very deep trouble.  Using the IRS for personal or political reasons is breaking the unbreakable rule.  It's like Pete Rose betting on baseball (or Harry Potter's Unforgivable Curses).  It's drilled into everybody at the IRS.
 
2013-05-13 04:32:17 PM

joness0154: unlikely: HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?

Yes. With as much as these guys tried to blur the line between church, PAC, and straight-up business, if they did not check out every single organization that claimed some connection, I'd have thought them remiss.

By June 2011, the unit had flagged over 100 Tea Party-related applications and the criteria used to scrutinize organizations had grown considerably, flagging not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in group names, but also groups that were working on issues like "government debt," "taxes" and even organizations making statements that "criticize how the country is being run."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-con se rvatives-in-2010/

I'm left leaning, and even I find this disturbing.  Trying to pass this off like the IRS wasn't specifically targeting conservative groups in general is being very disingenuous.  I won't defend a government organization who is doing shiat like this, no matter what my political leanings are.


So you're upset that the IRS used political buzzwords as criteria to discover political organizations that were applying (fraudulently) for tax exempt status?

Isn't that like.... their job?
 
2013-05-13 04:32:36 PM

that bosnian sniper: HoustonNick: To qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), the main purpose of the group is supposed to be for social welfare, and are prohibited from the primary purpose being political in nature.  So I can easily see quite a few of the tea party applications messing up on this part.

And forgive me for not taking what a Republican Congressman says during a Fox News interview at face value.

So instead you rely on your source "It isn't too far-fetched".  Yea, that seems more reliable.

Can't help but notice you responded in no way to what I bolded. Now, why don't you ask yourself  why tea party groups would incorporate en masse as 501(c)(4) in the wake of  Citizens United, and in the lead-up to the 2012 election, and ask yourself,  is this  really something Republicans should be hammering on in the media right now?


I think that is something that should be investigated.  Who was creating all these groups, and where were they getting their funding?  Couldn't be because they were trying to set themselves up as "Spooky-PACs" or anything similar now could it?
 
2013-05-13 04:32:54 PM

mrshowrules: MrBallou: ggowins: none of the applications were rejected

They've really lowered the bar on "scandal" these days. In my day, something actually had to happen for it to be considered a scandal.

at a bare minimum you should have:

1) something that happened (a victim or some type of impact to someone)
2) criminal wrong doing behind just not doing a good job
3) a link to a person in power (if political a link to said political person)


4) A gate. All the best scandals involve a gate.
 
2013-05-13 04:32:59 PM

Agneska: Watch the thugs from Chicago in action.  This is how they do business in Obamaland. Disgraceful.


They investigate groups with political names for violations of the "no political activity" condition for their tax-exempt status, and then don't revoke it?
 
2013-05-13 04:33:03 PM
So far what we know is that some staffers in an office in Cleveland improperly singled out groups with the name "Tea Party" for extra scrutiny in non-profit applications.  When higher ups at the IRS discovered this, they instructed these staffers to broaden their criteria for scrutiny so as not to have the affect of targeting a particular political group.  The head of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

The idea that the President or anyone in the White House ordered these investigations seems highly unlikely.

tl;dr - Overzealous staffers.
 
2013-05-13 04:34:43 PM
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, and please correct me if I'm not:

A group of people who run political groups named after a group of people who argued against paying taxes is running around the country telling others that taxes are too high, that states should secede, and blatantly telling the media that off shore accounts such as the Cayman Islands are just "legal loopholes that Americans use to be patriotic" is pissed off that the IRS is looking into their taxes?


I'll be busy trying to sew my ass back on since I just laughed it off.
 
2013-05-13 04:34:59 PM
I was going to say that it wouldn't make sense for the GOP to focus on this, since Obama had no culpability and there's no rational criticism to be made about his response after the fact, but pesky details like these didn't stop the Republicans with Benghazi, so...
 
2013-05-13 04:36:01 PM

Nobodyn0se: joness0154: unlikely: HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?

Yes. With as much as these guys tried to blur the line between church, PAC, and straight-up business, if they did not check out every single organization that claimed some connection, I'd have thought them remiss.

By June 2011, the unit had flagged over 100 Tea Party-related applications and the criteria used to scrutinize organizations had grown considerably, flagging not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in group names, but also groups that were working on issues like "government debt," "taxes" and even organizations making statements that "criticize how the country is being run."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-con se rvatives-in-2010/

I'm left leaning, and even I find this disturbing.  Trying to pass this off like the IRS wasn't specifically targeting conservative groups in general is being very disingenuous.  I won't defend a government organization who is doing shiat like this, no matter what my political leanings are.

So you're upset that the IRS used political buzzwords as criteria to discover political organizations that were applying (fraudulently) for tax exempt status?

Isn't that like.... their job?


Yes. Just because an organization is critical of taxes does not mean they aren't paying taxes.  Just because an organization is critical of the way the government is being run doesn't mean they are any more likely to fraudulently fill out their tax-exempt status than one that has nothing but praise for the government.

Even a blind squirrel can see they this was a blatant target of conservative groups.  Obama himself has said this is inappropriate.
 
2013-05-13 04:36:03 PM
This is not a scandal.
 
2013-05-13 04:36:14 PM
Nixon proved you can have more than one scandal at a time

Next up is the Sebelius scandal which will break soon.
 
2013-05-13 04:36:46 PM

And I've just finished my milk: 4) A gate. All the best scandals involve a gate.


Not anymore.  -gate is old and busted.  -ghazi is the new hotness.

So this would be Taxghazi.
 
2013-05-13 04:36:50 PM

Alphakronik: So, if I'm understanding this correctly, and please correct me if I'm not:

A group of people who run political groups named after a group of people who argued against paying taxes is running around the country telling others that taxes are too high, that states should secede, and blatantly telling the media that off shore accounts such as the Cayman Islands are just "legal loopholes that Americans use to be patriotic" is pissed off that the IRS is looking into their taxes?


I'll be busy trying to sew my ass back on since I just laughed it off.


Nope. Nobody was looking into their taxes. They were looking into whether or not they qualify as non-profits, who are not allowed to be political.
 
2013-05-13 04:36:57 PM
Thats it! I will never vote for Obama again!
 
2013-05-13 04:37:54 PM
The Inspector General's Draft Report in question:

(PDF)  http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Appendix%20VI%20and%20Appendix% 2 0VII.PDF
 
2013-05-13 04:38:06 PM

joness0154: Nobodyn0se: joness0154: unlikely: HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?

Yes. With as much as these guys tried to blur the line between church, PAC, and straight-up business, if they did not check out every single organization that claimed some connection, I'd have thought them remiss.

By June 2011, the unit had flagged over 100 Tea Party-related applications and the criteria used to scrutinize organizations had grown considerably, flagging not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in group names, but also groups that were working on issues like "government debt," "taxes" and even organizations making statements that "criticize how the country is being run."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-con se rvatives-in-2010/

I'm left leaning, and even I find this disturbing.  Trying to pass this off like the IRS wasn't specifically targeting conservative groups in general is being very disingenuous.  I won't defend a government organization who is doing shiat like this, no matter what my political leanings are.

So you're upset that the IRS used political buzzwords as criteria to discover political organizations that were applying (fraudulently) for tax exempt status?

Isn't that like.... their job?

Yes. Just because an organization is critical of taxes does not mean they aren't paying taxes.  Just because an organization is critical of the way the government is being run doesn't mean they are any more likely to fraudulently fill out their tax-exempt status than one that has nothing but praise for the government.

Even a blind squirrel can see they this was a blatant target of conservative groups.  Obama himself has said this is inappropriate.


You don't have the first clue what the whole issue here is, do you?
 
2013-05-13 04:38:11 PM

joness0154: I'm left leaning, and even I find this disturbing.  Trying to pass this off like the IRS wasn't specifically targeting conservative groups in general is being very disingenuous.  I won't defend a government organization who is doing shiat like this, no matter what my political leanings are.


I'm probably one of the most heavily-left-leaning people on Fark, and I'd find it more disturbing if this  wasn't being investigated. After  Citizens United, there are about two uses 501(c)(4)'s have for a political movement:

1. Exploit lax campaign finance law to use unlimited, anonymous and tax-exempt money for electioneering.
2. Funnel anonymously (i.e. launder) big money to 501(c)(3)'s, which enjoy only nominally lesser freedom in electioneering spending,  for which donations are tax-deductible.

What this amounts to is a gigantic,  legal tax evasion scheme that also allows for wholesale corruption of the political process. And, since it's  all legal the only real purpose to investigating anything here, is to make sure paperwork is filed correctly.
 
2013-05-13 04:38:25 PM

joness0154: unlikely: HoustonNick: Seriously, you think the IRS was justified to do this?

Yes. With as much as these guys tried to blur the line between church, PAC, and straight-up business, if they did not check out every single organization that claimed some connection, I'd have thought them remiss.

By June 2011, the unit had flagged over 100 Tea Party-related applications and the criteria used to scrutinize organizations had grown considerably, flagging not just "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in group names, but also groups that were working on issues like "government debt," "taxes" and even organizations making statements that "criticize how the country is being run."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-began-targeting-con se rvatives-in-2010/

I'm left leaning, and even I find this disturbing.  Trying to pass this off like the IRS wasn't specifically targeting conservative groups in general is being very disingenuous.  I won't defend a government organization who is doing shiat like this, no matter what my political leanings are.


They found that a certain class of propaganda term had a high coincidence with people committing fraud. They then pursued their investigation with that information in mind.
That's the job they're paid to do.
 
Displayed 50 of 286 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report