Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Mother Jones)   The dirt behind the IRS scandal. What happened and who's to blame. Explained   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, IRS, IRS scandal, Charles Boustany, Shulman, Fred Wertheimer, scandals  
•       •       •

2515 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 May 2013 at 10:20 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 10:08:56 AM  
Lerner pointed the finger at low-level, "frontline" staffers in the IRS's Cincinnati office, where staffers reviewed 501(c)(4) nonprofit applications. High-ranking IRS officials, Lerner said, were unaware of the practice.

Non-zealous. Overstory staffer.
 
2013-05-14 10:11:42 AM  
It's almost like the IRS is fixated on where money comes from and where it goes. Go figure.
 
2013-05-14 10:22:09 AM  
Is Mother Jones sponsoring Fark?
Can't find a more Fair and Balanced source of reporting?
 
2013-05-14 10:23:41 AM  
#1 Non-profits aren't allowed to lobby
#2 Non-profit groups with names/missions indicating political lobbying were investigated
#3 Racist white folks are now against profiling

/that sum it up?
 
2013-05-14 10:24:34 AM  

simplicimus: It's almost like the IRS is fixated on where money comes from and where it goes. Go figure.


No, you see, Tea Party assholes were targeted. Clearly that makes this a scandal now.

/it's pretty sad that someone in the administration felt they had to reach middle ground with tea partiers and apologize for this non-story
 
2013-05-14 10:25:07 AM  
From time to time, the IRS takes extra interest in groups that claim to be non-political, yet are very political. NACCP in 2004, Tea Party in 2010, Jewish groups in 2012. It's almost like that's their job and this is the natural response to their investigations.
 
2013-05-14 10:26:39 AM  
Duh.  We already know who's to blame.  Fartbama.

/Taxghazi
 
2013-05-14 10:26:42 AM  
I think this is hilarious. Another non-scandal that the right is crying over. Cry more. I hope Obama really is behind this because it's so wonderfully Nixon-esque. In other words, I want Obama to be the left's Nixon and to out Nixon the GOP.

Because that would be both awesome and hilarious.
 
2013-05-14 10:27:06 AM  
So, groups whose core message is "We don't want to pay taxes" got extra attention from the tax collectors?  Shocking.
 
2013-05-14 10:28:01 AM  
Who cares, farking tax all of them like they tax us.
 
2013-05-14 10:29:15 AM  
501(c)(4) organizations are, by definition, supposed to be concerned with improving social welfare. They are explicitly not supposed to be exclusively political advocacy groups. Congress and Treasury regulators within the IRS have not told their employees how they are supposed to determine whether a specific 501(c)(4) is actually promoting social welfare or focusing solely on politics. IRS employees at the Cincinnati branch saw a huge influx of new groups applying for 501(c)(4) status in the wake of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Without guidance, these employees decided they had to do their job and figure out which of these groups was legit and which were essentially looking for tax-free political advocacy. Unfortunately, they chose to weed out these groups in a horribly unjust manner. Congress needs to get off its ass and tell the IRS what rules they should use to determine if a 501(c)(4) is actually focused on social welfare and qualifies for tax-free status.
 
2013-05-14 10:30:40 AM  
 Mother Jones reporting !

Why that like having OJ Simpson out looking for the real killer.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-14 10:31:20 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Lerner pointed the finger at low-level, "frontline" staffers in the IRS's Cincinnati office, where staffers reviewed 501(c)(4) nonprofit applications. High-ranking IRS officials, Lerner said, were unaware of the practice.

Non-zealous. Overstory staffer.


Which is bullsh*t. Don't get me wrong, I think people applying for that category should be audited on a regular farking basis.* IRS personnel hiding behind this shiat? Kick'em all to the curb as a lesson.

*I just got done taking a nephew to a hunter education class. This class is hosted on the site of a "charitable organization" and run by the head of that organization. The derp of that came out of his, and other instructors, mouths was blindingly political. Almost all of it wasn't even related to hunting.
 
2013-05-14 10:31:31 AM  
Yes, there's no possible legitimate reason the IRS could have for scrutinizing groups whose very existence is based upon paying less taxes.

/five bucks says they try to pin it on Hilary
 
2013-05-14 10:33:07 AM  

Serious Black: 501(c)(4) organizations are, by definition, supposed to be concerned with improving social welfare.


The very idea of an organization with "tea party" in its name improving social welfare gives my brain the funny-laughs.
 
2013-05-14 10:34:00 AM  
It should be pointed out, once again, that right wing political groups are exactly the type of orgs that the IRS should be looking closely at. The problem is that they're not the ONLY political groups the IRS should be looking into. Contrary to what the whiners are whining, the solution is not to leave the right wing groups alone, its to stop leaving everyone ELSE alone. Abuse of tax exempt status is rampant on every side, and is in desperate need of cleaning up.
 
2013-05-14 10:35:27 AM  

Superjew: Yes, there's no possible legitimate reason the IRS could have for scrutinizing groups whose very existence is based upon paying less taxes.

/five bucks says they try to pin it on Hilary


You are lying.
1.  They say they are taxed enough, not that they want to pay less taxes.
2.  They targeted groups with the word "Patriot", "Constitution" or the phrase "improve America" (something like that.  None of which has nothing to do with taxes or the Tea Party.

But you know that, but you need to promote that lie since it is all you got.

Defending the IRS on this?  Really??

Check yourself before you wreck yourself?
 
2013-05-14 10:35:34 AM  
FTA: Last year, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Emerge America, a San Francisco-based group that trains female Democratic candidates. Emerge was too political and too focused on benefiting the Democratic Party, the IRS ruled, to qualify for 501(c)(4) status.

Wait, so these tax exempt groups aren't supposed to be too political or partisan? How do these various Tea Party groups even exist as tax exempt organizations at all? Hell yes, if we suddenly have thousands of them claiming tax exempt status while accepting big $$$ from political donors, they should be investigated. Nonpartisan my ass.
 
2013-05-14 10:36:06 AM  
ack;  "anything", not "nothing".
 
2013-05-14 10:38:59 AM  

trotsky: In other words, I want Obama to be the left's Nixon and to out Nixon the GOP.


Who says he is not.... Nixon's only issue was that he was caught.
 
2013-05-14 10:39:35 AM  
what is mother jones?
 
2013-05-14 10:39:44 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 1. They say they are taxed enough, not that they want to pay less taxes.


The tenth item on their Contract from America is "reduce taxes."
 
2013-05-14 10:40:06 AM  

un4gvn666: Serious Black: 501(c)(4) organizations are, by definition, supposed to be concerned with improving social welfare.

The very idea of an organization with "tea party" in its name improving social welfare gives my brain the funny-laughs.


Oh, I completely agree with you. But the point is that the IRS shouldn't be targeting a group because their name includes the phrase "Tea Party" in its name. By that logic, a group devoted to telling people about the health benefits of drinking tea but who happened to use "Tea Party" in their name should get hammered by the IRS.
 
2013-05-14 10:40:57 AM  

simplicimus: It's almost like the IRS is fixated on where money comes from and where it goes. Go figure.


Exactly.  When are they going to get back to their core business practices of giving out hugs and baking cookies.
 
2013-05-14 10:42:10 AM  

un4gvn666: The very idea of an organization with "tea party" in its name improving social welfare gives my brain the funny-laughs.


It's right up there with conservative groups that have "family" in the title.

In fact, you can assume that every single title that anyone aligned with the GOP gives themselves is the opposite of what they really want to do.

i.huffpost.com

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-14 10:42:24 AM  

SamWaters: what is mother jones?


www.motherjonesmuseum.org
 
2013-05-14 10:43:10 AM  
Remember when Bush was president and congressional democrates found themselves on the "Do Not Fly List"?
 
2013-05-14 10:44:19 AM  

Serious Black: un4gvn666: Serious Black: 501(c)(4) organizations are, by definition, supposed to be concerned with improving social welfare.

The very idea of an organization with "tea party" in its name improving social welfare gives my brain the funny-laughs.

Oh, I completely agree with you. But the point is that the IRS shouldn't be targeting a group because their name includes the phrase "Tea Party" in its name. By that logic, a group devoted to telling people about the health benefits of drinking tea but who happened to use "Tea Party" in their name should get hammered by the IRS.


If by "hammered" you mean "have their application reviewed and approved anyway," then that is an accurate comparison to what happened in Cincinnati.
 
2013-05-14 10:44:47 AM  

WTF Indeed: From time to time, the IRS takes extra interest in groups that claim to be non-political, yet are very political. NACCP in 2004, Tea Party in 2010, Jewish groups in 2012. It's almost like that's their job and this is the natural response to their investigations.


Amazingly these groups and their timing coincide with when they may cause an issue with the prevailing power structure.  Nothing to see here.
 
2013-05-14 10:46:12 AM  

Saiga410: WTF Indeed: From time to time, the IRS takes extra interest in groups that claim to be non-political, yet are very political. NACCP in 2004, Tea Party in 2010, Jewish groups in 2012. It's almost like that's their job and this is the natural response to their investigations.

Amazingly these groups and their timing coincide with when they may cause an issue with the prevailing power structure.  Nothing to see here.


You mean these groups would wait until their lobbying would be most effective to lobby? What sense does that make?
 
2013-05-14 10:46:27 AM  

Serious Black: But the point is that the IRS shouldn't be targeting a group because their name includes the phrase "Tea Party" in its name.


The article says they had an influx of thousands of groups claiming tax exempt status. This seems like exactly the sort of thing they should be questioning. I don't quite get the outrage over what is essentially a keyword search. There wasn't an influx of pro-Obama groups claiming tax exempt status, at least not nearly to the degree that the Tea Party grew in a short time.
 
2013-05-14 10:47:10 AM  

WTF Indeed: Saiga410: WTF Indeed: From time to time, the IRS takes extra interest in groups that claim to be non-political, yet are very political. NACCP in 2004, Tea Party in 2010, Jewish groups in 2012. It's almost like that's their job and this is the natural response to their investigations.

Amazingly these groups and their timing coincide with when they may cause an issue with the prevailing power structure.  Nothing to see here.

You mean these groups would wait until their lobbying would be most effective to lobby? What sense does that make?


Dangit, dont be brining in any of that fancy logic.  I want to be all tinfoilly.
 
2013-05-14 10:47:30 AM  
Dear Tea Partiers*.

If you don't want to be treated like terrorists, then stop acting like terrorists.

Love, the sane world

PS: Say what you want about Muslim suicide bombers, but at least they are brave enough to follow through on their beliefs. Teabaggers* who propose Second Amendment Solutions are cowards of galactic proportions. Sure, they talk a big game, but at the first sign of opposition they piss and shiat all over their mobility scooters. The rest of the world should be grateful that Teabaggers* are not brave enough to actually do anything other than cower in fear of non-caucasians.

PPS: Yes, Teabaggers*. I am saying that you are morally inferior to middle-eastern suicide bombers. What are you going to do about it?

* e.g. All Republicans
 
2013-05-14 10:48:02 AM  
as long as everyone agrees I was not to blame, nor were any of my peeps.

It IS someone's fault and they should go down for it, but it's not me.
 
2013-05-14 10:48:20 AM  
The obvious political bent to this seems to be escaping some people. This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 
2013-05-14 10:50:33 AM  

Cletus C.: The obvious political bent to this seems to be escaping some people. This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.


I would give my opponent plenty of ammo if I was sure they would shoot themselves in the foot with it. The Republicans harping on this non-scandal is doing exactly that. Let them fiddle that chicken while Rome burns, I'm sure it'll help them in the mid-terms.
 
2013-05-14 10:51:11 AM  
Lemme get this straight.  The IRS is in charge of enforcing tax law.  TEA Party stands for TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY Party.
 
2013-05-14 10:51:42 AM  

Cletus C.: This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.


It definitely gives them ammo. But can you honestly say these groups these groups claiming to be non-political shouldn't warrant review? I'm amazed that these groups have been able to get away with claiming to be non-partisan. That's bullsh*t.
 
2013-05-14 10:51:56 AM  

un4gvn666: Cletus C.: The obvious political bent to this seems to be escaping some people. This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I would give my opponent plenty of ammo if I was sure they would shoot themselves in the foot with it. The Republicans harping on this non-scandal is doing exactly that. Let them fiddle that chicken while Rome burns, I'm sure it'll help them in the mid-terms.


The president is harping on it, too.
 
2013-05-14 10:53:45 AM  
How many non-Republicans are in the Tea Party Caucus in Congress?  Surely the Tea Party is apolitical if that number is greater than zero.
 
2013-05-14 10:53:57 AM  

someonelse: Cletus C.: This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

It definitely gives them ammo. But can you honestly say these groups these groups claiming to be non-political shouldn't warrant review? I'm amazed that these groups have been able to get away with claiming to be non-partisan. That's bullsh*t.


There are a whole bunch of groups that fall into that category. Churches are especially galling. They went after one specific group and anyone who sounded like they might be like-minded. As I said, stupid.
 
2013-05-14 10:56:50 AM  

Cletus C.: un4gvn666: Cletus C.: The obvious political bent to this seems to be escaping some people. This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I would give my opponent plenty of ammo if I was sure they would shoot themselves in the foot with it. The Republicans harping on this non-scandal is doing exactly that. Let them fiddle that chicken while Rome burns, I'm sure it'll help them in the mid-terms.

The president is harping on it, too.


Yeah, but it kinda has the feel of when they fired Shirley Sherrod before realizing they'd been Breitbarted. I could be wrong.
 
2013-05-14 10:57:30 AM  

someonelse: Cletus C.: This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

It definitely gives them ammo. But can you honestly say these groups these groups claiming to be non-political shouldn't warrant review? I'm amazed that these groups have been able to get away with claiming to be non-partisan. That's bullsh*t.


And to be fair, what WOULDN'T give these dumbasses ammo? They are still outraged over Michelle's whitey tape and lobster, and that never even happened!
 
2013-05-14 10:57:30 AM  

Cletus C.: un4gvn666: Cletus C.: The obvious political bent to this seems to be escaping some people. This is a major fark up by the IRS and gives ammo to the tards in the tea party. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I would give my opponent plenty of ammo if I was sure they would shoot themselves in the foot with it. The Republicans harping on this non-scandal is doing exactly that. Let them fiddle that chicken while Rome burns, I'm sure it'll help them in the mid-terms.

The president is harping on it, too.


I never said the President wouldn't do his best to stop it. He cares more about appearing centrist than doing what's right. It's my #1 criticism of him.

Doesn't mean Republicans aren't doing us a favor by focusing on this nonsense. A marginalized Republican Party is better for America.
 
2013-05-14 10:59:42 AM  
It would be hilarious if this "scandal" made people wake up and realize that these groups in no way deserve to be tax exempt. Won't happen, but it would be hilarious.
 
2013-05-14 11:02:06 AM  
So some groups that garnered attention through their disdain for paying taxes got attention of the wrong kind and now they feel victimized? What a scandal.
 
2013-05-14 11:02:29 AM  
The 501C non profit status is horribly abused by many. IRS should be stringently checking them all.
 
2013-05-14 11:02:56 AM  

someonelse: Serious Black: But the point is that the IRS shouldn't be targeting a group because their name includes the phrase "Tea Party" in its name.

The article says they had an influx of thousands of groups claiming tax exempt status. This seems like exactly the sort of thing they should be questioning. I don't quite get the outrage over what is essentially a keyword search. There wasn't an influx of pro-Obama groups claiming tax exempt status, at least not nearly to the degree that the Tea Party grew in a short time.


If I didn't make it clear originally, I fully agree with the IRS trying to figure out which of these groups are focused on promoting social welfare and which are trying to be tax-free political lobbying groups. What I disagree with is that this keyword search was a major criterion. That smacks of a crackdown on free speech in terms of calling a group whatever you want to call it. The IRS, and Congress or the White House if necessary, need to create clear and non-political rules for separating legit social welfare groups from those that are abusing the rules.
 
2013-05-14 11:04:18 AM  

Serious Black: un4gvn666: Serious Black: 501(c)(4) organizations are, by definition, supposed to be concerned with improving social welfare.

The very idea of an organization with "tea party" in its name improving social welfare gives my brain the funny-laughs.

Oh, I completely agree with you. But the point is that the IRS shouldn't be targeting a group because their name includes the phrase "Tea Party" in its name. By that logic, a group devoted to telling people about the health benefits of drinking tea but who happened to use "Tea Party" in their name should get hammered by the IRS.


I dunno, the Tea Party is a political movement and very nearly a full-blown political party. If a group had "Democratic" or "Libertarian" in the name they should get increased scrutiny.

/yeah, I know they're officially nonpartisan, the Republican Party just happens to agree with them on every issue
 
2013-05-14 11:04:48 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Is Mother Jones sponsoring Fark?
Can't find a more Fair and Balanced source of reporting?


Which parts of this article were incorrect?  Which ones were misleading?  Which ones were wrong?

I'm trying to stay informed and you seem to know what's up.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report