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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 172
    More: Interesting, IRS, inspector generals, scandals  
•       •       •

4483 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2013 at 11:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-15 10:42:46 AM
i.cdn.turner.com
"I find no evidence of wrongdoing. And thus I say give them the fist, give them the wrist... and give them the finger."
 
2013-05-15 11:17:28 AM
Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?
 
2013-05-15 11:26:17 AM

cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?


Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.
 
2013-05-15 11:39:20 AM

cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?


People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?
 
2013-05-15 11:42:56 AM
Now that's been released, not that all the hyper prior to anyone actually reading it could be inaccurate or sensationalized.
 
2013-05-15 11:44:18 AM

cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?


How can I admit that the IRS farked up if I have to shut up?  I just can't do it.  But I can say that the IRS farked up, and THEN shut my mouth.  The order is important.
 
2013-05-15 11:47:35 AM
Facts are stupid things.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-05-15 11:47:38 AM
THANKS OBAMA
 
2013-05-15 11:48:08 AM

LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?


You have people in the other thread openly advocating fascism and claiming this was a good thing
 
2013-05-15 11:49:06 AM
I read the report. It demonstrates a clear bias towards certain policy positions which is in violation of IRS standards. The scandal is that the Congress has been investigating these allegations since 2011 and the IRS has consistently denied it. The cover up is more incriminating than the original mistake.
 
2013-05-15 11:49:43 AM
Fair tax anyone?
 
2013-05-15 11:51:04 AM
Interestingly, the only group that saw its status denied (for 10 of its chapters) was Emerge America, which works to elect Democratic women to office.

This is Obama's Waterloo!
 
2013-05-15 11:51:21 AM

trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?


Sounds good, it'll collapse the state and bring about the revolution.
 
2013-05-15 11:51:40 AM

Richard Blaine: I read the report. It demonstrates a clear bias towards certain policy positions which is in violation of IRS standards. The scandal is that the Congress has been investigating these allegations since 2011 and the IRS has consistently denied it. The cover up is more incriminating than the original mistake.


I wondered how long it would take an official internal investigation released to the public to be called "a coverup."
 
2013-05-15 11:52:52 AM
Awesome.  So I guess impeachment proceedings will begin posthaste, then?
 
2013-05-15 11:53:10 AM

ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism


No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.
 
2013-05-15 11:55:15 AM

Richard Blaine: I read the report. It demonstrates a clear bias towards certain policy positions which is in violation of IRS standards. The scandal is that the Congress has been investigating these allegations since 2011 and the IRS has consistently denied it. The cover up is more incriminating than the original mistake.


has the IRS denied it or have they been waiting on this report?  I'm sure some heads will roll over this. but Boehner wants someone to go to jail.

I want to know why he hasn't gone to jail for wasting taxpayer's money for political reasons with all the repeal Obamacare votes they've had.  they're doing it only because they want the new guys to be able to say "I voted to repeal Obamacare" in their campaign ads. they've admitted as much.
 
2013-05-15 11:55:18 AM
TL;DR version:

"You shouldn't have used 'tea party' or 'patriot' as criteria because it looks like you're singling out certain groups. There were some delays in processing some applications that should not have taken so long. We need to firm up our guidelines a bit. Everyone back to work."

OMGWTFTYRANNY? No. "Improper," sure, in the sense of "not best practices." Oppressive? No.
 
2013-05-15 11:56:28 AM
I hope the investigation of the IRS is an extended affair.  Please bring them forward into the Congress for punishing reviews and questions.  Let them justify themselves.  Look into criminal statues.   Put them through hell.  Keep asking them for more information and data.   The shoe my friends is on the other foot.  This will be enjoyable to me.

www.toucanisland.com
 
2013-05-15 11:56:29 AM

trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?


yes but let's base it on assets and not salaried income.
 
2013-05-15 11:56:33 AM

ShadowKamui: LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?

You have people in the other thread openly advocating fascism and claiming this was a good thing


A tiny number. Why bother with them? Why the need to act like there is a mass move to defend and cover this?
 
2013-05-15 11:58:29 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.


Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy
 
2013-05-15 12:00:27 PM

ShadowKamui: Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like


None of which is happening, you delusional silly person.
 
2013-05-15 12:00:55 PM

trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?


Yes, clearly the solution is to resort to a regressive tax that doesn't fix the deficit and still needs the IRS to collect it. Brilliant plan!
 
2013-05-15 12:01:33 PM

ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy


Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?
 
2013-05-15 12:01:54 PM

ShadowKamui: LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?

You have people in the other thread openly advocating fascism and claiming this was a good thing


Well I'm glad we all agree that profiling is fascism.
 
2013-05-15 12:02:12 PM

cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?


The "my bad, should I have not done that," defense?
 
2013-05-15 12:02:45 PM
and as if the delays in getting those filings processed in time wasn't enough......http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gop-senator-u nveils-bill-t o-block-funding-for
 
2013-05-15 12:03:17 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy

Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?


You know who else gave minor additional scrutiny to 501 applications before accepting them, thus not only allowing the groups to carry on with their operations but also granting them tax-exempt status?
 
2013-05-15 12:04:18 PM

ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy


I'm gonna start off by saying that I am opposed to the IRS specifically going after conservatives groups, and what they did was wrong. HOWEVER, I will say this is based upon the assumption it was done for political reasons. However, 2 points:

1) If there is a flood of new applicants from a specific political group, one who's members have shown they are quite adverse to taxes, and are trying to get tax-free status for organizations with names that are overtly political, would it not be wise to kind of keep an eye on them?

2) What exact harassment did these groups go through? I mean, using the phrase "fascism" over actions like requesting an additional form to be filled out kind of diminishes the word. I honestly don't know, I just keep reading they were targeted, but I'm not entirely clear what sort of process that entailed for these groups. Was their free speech attacked?
 
2013-05-15 12:04:54 PM

Intrepid00: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

The "my bad, should I have not done that," defense?


Ah, the Costanza. A classic.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:30 PM

ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy


They are ideals of an Ann Coulter book, however.

images.betterworldbooks.com
 
2013-05-15 12:06:15 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: You know who else gave minor additional scrutiny to 501 applications before accepting them, thus not only allowing the groups to carry on with their operations but also granting them tax-exempt status?


The, uh, previous manager assigned to that Cincinnati office? And the one before that? And the one before that?
 
2013-05-15 12:06:22 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: cameroncrazy1984: ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy

Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

You know who else gave minor additional scrutiny to 501 applications before accepting them, thus not only allowing the groups to carry on with their operations but also granting them tax-exempt status?


Don't you dare joke about that.

My PAC was singled out for an extra questionnaire at Auschwitz.
 
2013-05-15 12:06:49 PM

clkeagle: A Dark Evil Omen: You know who else gave minor additional scrutiny to 501 applications before accepting them, thus not only allowing the groups to carry on with their operations but also granting them tax-exempt status?

The, uh, previous manager assigned to that Cincinnati office? And the one before that? And the one before that?


That's right, Hitler! Mike Hitler, the previous manager assigned to that office.
 
2013-05-15 12:07:09 PM
Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS

s17.postimg.org
 
2013-05-15 12:07:49 PM

ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy


So anything we don't like is fascism. That guy didn't courtesy flush after dropping a deuce. What a fascist jerk!
 
2013-05-15 12:08:44 PM

LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?


A lot of people have taken a grumpy cat approach to the scandal of "well duh, everyone knows these groups are political, so I'm glad they did it" and either downplay or ignore that the guidelines these agents were using was discriminatory. The IRS higher ups saw employees use a standard that was biased against conservative groups, told them to knock it off, and never followed up to see if they changed the criteria (they didn't). This should lead to people being fired for poor management and failure to follow orders.

However, the biggest issue is that conservative groups are conflating non-profit applications with tax returns and implying people ended up getting audited for their political beliefs instead of filing additional paperwork detailing the goals of their organization.

The next big thing is Boehner is out there now demanding jail time for those involved in this. Sorry, but if nobody went to jail over the Pigford snafu I highly doubt increased scrutiny of applications that never actually rejected anyone based on the requirements will result in people behind bars.
 
2013-05-15 12:08:49 PM
A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.
 
2013-05-15 12:08:53 PM

Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy

So anything we don't like is fascism. That guy didn't courtesy flush after dropping a deuce. What a fascist jerk!


Except for actual fascism, of course. We call that Patriot Freedom for Truth America.
 
2013-05-15 12:10:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy

Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?


I think he was talking about my call for bussing conservative leaders to reeducation FEMA camps in Montana.

Which isn't fascism, because it would be international in character and not rely on a cartel between government and capital holders. Also, as a leftist, I deplore racialism, nationalism, and imperialism.

It would, I admit, be a bit Bolshevist and authoritarian. I'm ok with that, though. Authoritarianism is awesome when the right people are in authority.
 
2013-05-15 12:11:21 PM

Grungehamster: LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?

A lot of people have taken a grumpy cat approach to the scandal of "well duh, everyone knows these groups are political, so I'm glad they did it" and either downplay or ignore that the guidelines these agents were using was discriminatory. The IRS higher ups saw employees use a standard that was biased against conservative groups, told them to knock it off, and never followed up to see if they changed the criteria (they didn't). This should lead to people being fired for poor management and failure to follow orders.

However, the biggest issue is that conservative groups are conflating non-profit applications with tax returns and implying people ended up getting audited for their political beliefs instead of filing additional paperwork detailing the goals of their organization.

The next big thing is Boehner is out there now demanding jail time for those involved in this. Sorry, but if nobody went to jail over the Pigford snafu I highly doubt increased scrutiny of applications that never actually rejected anyone based on the requirements will result in people behind bars.


Just send this questionnaire to everybody on the future. It shouldn't be easy to become tax exempt for anybody.
 
2013-05-15 12:11:53 PM
Come on subby, I can't be constantly outraged if I listen to facts and reason.
 
2013-05-15 12:12:36 PM
So what about Benghazi?
What did or did not happen that was supposed/not supposed to happen that is so horrible?

How about 9/11 and George W. Bush?
He did nothing to stop that and then wildly overreacted and invaded a couple of countries.
 
2013-05-15 12:13:35 PM
After reading the report (ok, most of it, i skimmed some) it doesn't look like any sort of partisan scandal.  Just looks like the IRS sucks at following their own rules.  Trying to connect it to Obama is ridiculous.  Instead, people should use this as an opportunity for tax reform (they won't, but they should)
 
2013-05-15 12:15:12 PM

ShadowKamui: A Dark Evil Omen: ShadowKamui: openly advocating fascism

No, that's right-wingers. Incessantly.

Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt.  Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy whatever I say it is because the actual definition of fascism is not important to me.


Obviously.
 
2013-05-15 12:17:29 PM

Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.


Except they weren't tax returns so that doesn't have any bearing. This was undeniably a screw up by the IRS and it really isn't helpful to pretend it was not. Arguing that it was okay just makes the allegations the right is throwing around about it being oppression or political bullying sound more credible. Stop it.
 
2013-05-15 12:19:48 PM
Eh, it's bullshiat that the baggers were singled out and it sounds like the IRS will rightfully pay for it and get their act together. That said, the tea party members and supporters can still go suck shiat from a giraffe's dick for being the destructive, ignorant assholes that they are.
 
2013-05-15 12:20:13 PM

Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.


Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.
 
2013-05-15 12:20:49 PM

ShadowKamui: Fascism is fascism regardless of if its wearing a red or a blue shirt. Cheering on the deliberate harassment of your political enemies and assuming free speech only means speech you like are not exactly ideals of a democracy


I'll admit that the profiling doesn't bother me. We have an actual, honest-to-god Tea Party caucus in Congress.

Why WOULDN"T the IRS single those out for investigation into whether or not they were created for political purpose? I wouldn't expect "Liberal PAC to elect Democrats" to be approved without some additional scrutiny either.

As someone said in one of the other threads, this was like driving through a DUI checkpoint while smoking a hand rolled tobacco cigarette in a car covered in pro-weed bumper stickers, and then acting indignant because the cop leaned in to take a really deep sniff before waving you through.
 
2013-05-15 12:21:30 PM

xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.


Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.
 
2013-05-15 12:22:50 PM
All but one Christian Coalition state organizations lost their IRS tax-exempt status

Most likely, if they hadn't, there would be no Tea Party.

Tax collecting has been around for as long as tax evasion.
 
2013-05-15 12:23:16 PM

mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.
 
2013-05-15 12:24:51 PM

odinsposse: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they weren't tax returns so that doesn't have any bearing. This was undeniably a screw up by the IRS and it really isn't helpful to pretend it was not. Arguing that it was okay just makes the allegations the right is throwing around about it being oppression or political bullying sound more credible. Stop it.


What are you babbling about? If you file for tax-exempt status, and register as what appears to be a political group that does not deserve tax-exempt status, it seems to me you should expect to have to pony up a little more info to prove you deserve said status.

If there had been a sudden explosion of groups named "committee to elect Democrats" I would expect to see the exact same thing happen.

But anyway, it's not like they were targeting "conservative" groups, only political groups, because the Tea Party is not a conservative, Republican group.
 
2013-05-15 12:25:00 PM
C/P Myself for everyone to ignore:

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
But a few lines later, we have: To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
So, in 1959 when this change went in, we have taken a word with legal meaning and changed it to something that is undefined.
As I see it, this is the problem.
Primarily is totally undefined and open to individual interpretation.

Now, why does everyone want to be a 501(c)(4)? Because the donor list is private.
 
2013-05-15 12:25:10 PM
No one faults "job creators" from tossing out resumes based on keywords. It makes their jobs easier, and anything that eases the burden of job creators is good for America. Yet it's suddenly not okay when the IRS does it? Not to mention they didn't even reject applications based on keywords, just required additional scrutiny?

The correct response is "Meh."

Either fund the IRS to go after everyone, or stop biatching when they take shortcuts that would be hailed as business savvy in the private sector.
I'd expect the same kind of thing to happen if liberal groups suddenly surged around a few key words, but since the Tea Party suddenly realized it was patriotic to oppose the blah guy, they bore the brunt of the IRS's shortcut.
 
2013-05-15 12:25:35 PM

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Before Obama government agencies didn't have controversies at all. That's what you get for electing the blah man sheeple!
 
2013-05-15 12:25:47 PM

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Except for how you have every fact in this post wrong, I agree with you.
 
2013-05-15 12:26:01 PM

Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.


Due to budget cuts, that's the way the IRS works. They have various flags that can be set off in returns. If you take the home office deduction, that is a big red flag 'cause most people don't know the narrow way that is to be used and counted.

Someone researched and found that 501s with TEA or Patriot were more likely to be fraudulent. Since the story coming out is that it was around a 25% retraction rate, they may have been on to something.

Another thought is that lets say they reviewed 10% of all 501s. Since 2010, there has been exponential growth of conservative 501s. So more conservative ones would have been reviewed.
 
2013-05-15 12:28:46 PM

Witty_Retort: C/P Myself for everyone to ignore:

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
But a few lines later, we have: To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
So, in 1959 when this change went in, we have taken a word with legal meaning and changed it to something that is undefined.
As I see it, this is the problem.
Primarily is totally undefined and open to individual interpretation.

Now, why does everyone want to be a 501(c)(4)? Because the donor list is private.


I would like to note - again - that many Occupy groups were rejected out of hand for 501 status, some because of lack of an approved board structure (which I understand, though it is bullshiat), but many because they were overtly political groups. We didn't get the benefit of having to fill out a questionnaire and then getting accepted.
 
2013-05-15 12:29:23 PM

Witty_Retort: C/P Myself for everyone to ignore:

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code defines tax-exempt social welfare groups like this: Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
But a few lines later, we have: To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.
So, in 1959 when this change went in, we have taken a word with legal meaning and changed it to something that is undefined.
As I see it, this is the problem.
Primarily is totally undefined and open to individual interpretation.

Now, why does everyone want to be a 501(c)(4)? Because the donor list is private.


Check out the chart on page 3.  501(c)(4) applications doubled from 2010 to 2012.
 
2013-05-15 12:32:21 PM
"Unfortunately it is evident this report was written with a conclusion already predetermined for political reasons. The evidence is that the report's conclusion matches the narrative by most pre-report."

The only "wrong doing" was that the groups were flagged for scrutiny because of the groups' names, rather than activity... activity that would be revealed by scrutiny...

So what I've been hearing is that a punch of anti-tax, extreme right fringe groups that have been applying for tax exemption as "social welfare" organizations, while their primary purpose has been to biatch and moan about anything the darker complexioned guy that was elected president has even attempted to do.  (I knew people who started the Lansing, MI/MSU Tea Party, they were working on it before Pres. Obama was even inaugurated); Now these groups that do nothing but political posturing are upset they were audited for violating their tax exemption by being political?
 
2013-05-15 12:32:52 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.


In other words, you have no argument to counter his point, so you just play the "derp" card.

cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?


It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....
 
2013-05-15 12:34:12 PM
I think I'm pretty liberal, but I think what the Cincinnati office did was absolutely wrong. Wrong, and lazy. And when their superiors told them to stop being lazy, they shrugged, pretended to change their ways, and then started right back up again. That's insubordination. That entire group should be fired for being wrong, lazy, and insubordinate.
 
2013-05-15 12:34:35 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: What are you babbling about? If you file for tax-exempt status, and register as what appears to be a political group that does not deserve tax-exempt status, it seems to me you should expect to have to pony up a little more info to prove you deserve said status.


Which wasn't the case here. The application for non-profit status isn't an information free one that just gets a stamp. You have to include who you are and what you plan on doing. Some of those groups were flagged for inquiry not because of what they were doing but because they had conservative buzzwords in their names or supported things that conservatives might support. Then those applications were delayed for an unusual amount of time and an inordinate amount of information that the IRS didn't really need was requested.

If there had been a sudden explosion of groups named "committee to elect Democrats" I would expect to see the exact same thing happen.
 But anyway, it's not like they were targeting "conservative" groups, only political groups, because the Tea Party is not a conservative, Republican group.


Except their policies did target conservative groups. There weren't any equivalent flags for terms like "progressive" or "environmental" Literally everyone agrees that the IRS screwed up, including this report, and trying to hand wave away an obvious problem makes liberals look worse and conservative conspiracy theorists look more credible. So stop doing that.
 
2013-05-15 12:36:11 PM

o5iiawah: It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.


A liberal group took 9 months to get approved. I'm still not seeing the problem here. Also, it should be noted that these groups were supposed to be social-welfare groups and not political organizations. Hence the scrutiny in the first place.
 
2013-05-15 12:36:41 PM

mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it. In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader? (Answer: Not very, if at all). Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies. It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Are you really comparing Tea Party members to people that were persecuted by McCarthy?  Wow.....
 
2013-05-15 12:36:45 PM

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.

In other words, you have no argument to counter his point, so you just play the "derp" card.


Oh, look at you. What point? The government has shrunk dramatically under the current administration. It's the height of idiocy to call the actions of one office in Cincinnati a coordinated attack on Fartfarta's political enemies. Comparing "additional scrutiny followed by granting status" to McCarthy's and the HUAC's high-profile witch hunts is just balls-out ridiculous. And, finally, we are back to asserting a BENGHAZI COVERUP! SOMETHING WAS DEFINITELY COVERED UP WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BUT WE ARE MAD AS HELL!

Now, the question is, who is dumber, him for saying it or you for defending it?
 
2013-05-15 12:38:47 PM
I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....  Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.
 
2013-05-15 12:39:05 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: Eh, it's bullshiat that the baggers were singled out and it sounds like the IRS will rightfully pay for it and get their act together. That said, the tea party members and supporters can still go suck shiat from a giraffe's dick for being the destructive, ignorant assholes that they are.


This. I am never for profiling, but it looks like things are being taken care of properly. I do love the delicious irony of the Teabaggers applying for welfare queen status. If you're tax exempt do you get an Obama phone?
 
2013-05-15 12:39:58 PM

Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....   Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.


Uh, I think your timeline's a little farked-up there, chief.
 
2013-05-15 12:41:29 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....   Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.

Uh, I think your timeline's a little farked-up there, chief.


No. all president's have access to the same time machine. It's Tardis One.
 
2013-05-15 12:41:50 PM
That's a lot of words for "over zealous staffer, nothing to see here."
 
2013-05-15 12:41:57 PM

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.

In other words, you have no argument to counter his point, so you just play the "derp" card.


You can'treason someone out of a positionthey didn't reason themselves into.

cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....


Is it because they were conservative, or is it because they were blatantly using political names for what is supposed to be a non-political entity? What non-TEA Party conservative groups were being targeted?
 
2013-05-15 12:42:58 PM

o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....


We have.

"One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected."

Oh wait. That was a progressive group.
Number of Tea Party groups rejected: 0
 
2013-05-15 12:43:10 PM

Cubicle Jockey: I'll admit that the profiling doesn't bother me. We have an actual, honest-to-god Tea Party caucus in Congress.


"All 66 former members of the Tea Party Caucus are members of the Republican Party. Three of them are part of the Republican leadership " -wiki
 
2013-05-15 12:44:58 PM

Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....  Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.


I think you mean the IRS scrutinize LAWGs. Occupy wasn't there yet.
 
2013-05-15 12:45:19 PM

Bane of Broone: This. I am never for profiling


Why are you against profiling?
I think you need to hone your preference a bit more.

I am against profiling in matters the individual has no meaningful control over. Race, gender, disability, etc. In other words, most protected classes.
Choosing a name for your organization and seeking tax exempt status are not one of them. If you're a social welfare organization, don't expect "Tea Party Patriots Against Unjust Taxes" to win you any point with the IRS.
 
2013-05-15 12:47:17 PM

Witty_Retort: Warlordtrooper: I still don't understand what is there to be outraged about here....  Bush had the FBI infiltrate liberal anti-war groups and occupy protesters.  Why isn't anybody screaming about that.

I think you mean the IRS scrutinize LAWGs. Occupy wasn't there yet.


No, he's right about FBI infiltrators in anti-war groups. Occupy groups, too, and to a disgusting extent; we've dealt with infiltrators and provocateurs that were linked to the FBI and DHS as well as local law enforcement. The part he was wrong about was "Bush"; it should have been "the American government at all times".
 
2013-05-15 12:48:08 PM
And in other news, the DEA was accused of unfairly targeting groups that included "Motorcycle Club" and "1%er" in their name.
 
2013-05-15 12:50:09 PM
Oh Come ON!
 
2013-05-15 12:50:48 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Bane of Broone: This. I am never for profiling

Why are you against profiling?
I think you need to hone your preference a bit more.

I am against profiling in matters the individual has no meaningful control over. Race, gender, disability, etc. In other words, most protected classes.
Choosing a name for your organization and seeking tax exempt status are not one of them. If you're a social welfare organization, don't expect "Tea Party Patriots Against Unjust Taxes" to win you any point with the IRS.


Good call. I like your line of thinking better. I don't want to give personhood to anything other than people.
 
2013-05-15 12:51:31 PM

Witty_Retort: o5iiawah: cameroncrazy1984: Can you name one group that was denied tax-exempt status in all of this? One? And can you please explain why that is fascism?

It wasn't in denying any group tax exempt status, it is in creating time and paperwork barriers that no other group had to go through, based exclusively on the political leanings of the group.

Its not like we havent been over this half a dozen times already....

We have.

"One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected."

Oh wait. That was a progressive group.
Number of Tea Party groups rejected: 0


Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt
 
2013-05-15 12:51:32 PM
does anyone else feel like they are being forced to participate in the outrage over this non-issue?
I mean, just because someone is outraged doesn't mean i have to share that outrage.

I for one would like the IRS to make absolute positive decisions when deciding on tax exempt status requests & i think we can all agree there are people/organizations that take pride in gaming the system.

so how can i get upset when the system takes that into consideration?
 
2013-05-15 12:52:49 PM

trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?


"Fair tax"?  Sure.

"Fair Tax"?  No thanks.  Hell, no.
 
2013-05-15 12:53:33 PM

Isitoveryet: does anyone else feel like they are being forced to participate in the outrage over this non-issue?
I mean, just because someone is outraged doesn't mean i have to share that outrage.

I for one would like the IRS to make absolute positive decisions when deciding on tax exempt status requests & i think we can all agree there are people/organizations that take pride in gaming the system.

so how can i get upset when the system takes that into consideration?


The right-wing is outraged, and so Very Serious People are outraged, and so you have to be outraged too. Just like ACORN and Shirley Sherrod, this is a Very Serious Issue.
 
2013-05-15 12:54:21 PM

FarkedOver: mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it. In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader? (Answer: Not very, if at all). Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies. It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Are you really comparing Tea Party members to people that were persecuted by McCarthy?  Wow.....


The comparison to Senator McCarthy's actions is sufficient to identify the post as a "troll". Actual Tea Party members would not associate McCarthyism with unjust persecution, as they believe Senator McCarthy to be an unfairly maligned hero who fought to protect the United States of America from a very real and encroaching communist menace.
 
2013-05-15 12:54:43 PM
Read? Like as in Study it out and the Iraq and such?
 
2013-05-15 12:56:02 PM

cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt


With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.
 
2013-05-15 12:57:15 PM
so the Tea Party people are to stupid to follow IRS regulations, maybe they should stick with keeping the government outta the medicare
 
2013-05-15 12:57:58 PM

Dimensio: FarkedOver: mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government. So big that he himself can no longer control it. In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader? (Answer: Not very, if at all). Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies. It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Are you really comparing Tea Party members to people that were persecuted by McCarthy?  Wow.....

The comparison to Senator McCarthy's actions is sufficient to identify the post as a "troll". Actual Tea Party members would not associate McCarthyism with unjust persecution, as they believe Senator McCarthy to be an unfairly maligned hero who fought to protect the United States of America from a very real and encroaching communist menace.


Build many strawmen?
 
2013-05-15 01:00:00 PM

Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.


With the prison population being 38% black targeting people for their color has been a "goo" targeting.
The moral of the story: weed rules
 
2013-05-15 01:00:54 PM

Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.

Bukkake?

 
2013-05-15 01:01:31 PM

cman: The moral of the story: weed rules


This explains 98% of your posts, actually.
 
2013-05-15 01:02:45 PM
TLDR;  I'll just get on the bandwagon.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:25 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Grungehamster: LasersHurt: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

People HAVE been admitting the IRS farked up. From day one that this broke.

Where is this fantasy land that some people live where everyone is brushing this under the rug and saying it's okay? There are so many people whining about it, it must be happening somewhere, right?

Is this one of those "I saw some idiot say it once therefore broadbrush giantstatement"?

A lot of people have taken a grumpy cat approach to the scandal of "well duh, everyone knows these groups are political, so I'm glad they did it" and either downplay or ignore that the guidelines these agents were using was discriminatory. The IRS higher ups saw employees use a standard that was biased against conservative groups, told them to knock it off, and never followed up to see if they changed the criteria (they didn't). This should lead to people being fired for poor management and failure to follow orders.

However, the biggest issue is that conservative groups are conflating non-profit applications with tax returns and implying people ended up getting audited for their political beliefs instead of filing additional paperwork detailing the goals of their organization.

The next big thing is Boehner is out there now demanding jail time for those involved in this. Sorry, but if nobody went to jail over the Pigford snafu I highly doubt increased scrutiny of applications that never actually rejected anyone based on the requirements will result in people behind bars.

Just send this questionnaire to everybody on the future. It shouldn't be easy to become tax exempt for anybody.


From what I've seen it wasn't even a standardized form: some got requests for membership information, others were asked to list and rank their organization's goals from most to least important, and some were explicitly asked if they or their members had any relationship with other similarly named organizations.

That is the most legitimate claim to harassment these groups have: instead of the IRS asking them "produce x, y, and z for approval" they would ask for more information in an arbitrary manner.

This is a legitimate case where a lack of oversight resulted in a real fustercluck and greatly undermined the IRS' mission.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:28 PM

cman: Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.

With the prison population being 38% black targeting people for their color has been a "goo" targeting.
The moral of the story: weed rules


I didn't make fun of your spelling of "exepmt" so you could've let my good go on by.
Your prison comparison doesn't work.
 
2013-05-15 01:06:58 PM
Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS

i41.tinypic.com

Real 'mericans don't read.
 
2013-05-15 01:08:25 PM

dennysgod: Before you jump on the "OMG IRS/BENGHAZI/OBAMA" scandal bandwagon, read the Inspector General's report on the IRS

[i41.tinypic.com image 550x550]

Real 'mericans don't read.


Damn straight!

cdn.hsmemes.com
 
2013-05-15 01:09:29 PM

Witty_Retort: cman: Witty_Retort: cman: Its OK that Tea Party groups were targeted because hey they denied a liberal group tax exepmt

With the 25% retraction rate, it seems to have been a goo targeting.
The moral of the story is that 0 TEA Party groups were denied their exemption.

With the prison population being 38% black targeting people for their color has been a "goo" targeting.
The moral of the story: weed rules

I didn't make fun of your spelling of "exepmt" so you could've let my good go on by.
Your prison comparison doesn't work.


You should have made fun of me when you had the chance. This is Fark. We berate each other for anything less than perfection.

And, if you were wondering, I know the prison comparison doesnt work. I thought the tone of the post distinctively marked it as a joke post. I guess I was wrong.
 
MFK
2013-05-15 01:09:58 PM
None of the overtly political Tea Party groups were rejected for tax exempt status?

This seems like the real scandal.

I would like to see how these guys are justifying that their primary activity is not political.
 
2013-05-15 01:10:58 PM
well, i can only conclude that the Tea Party is full of socialist!
 
2013-05-15 01:21:46 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: mistrmind: Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

Hahaha, wow. The density of potato in this post is going to make the thread collapse into a quantum black hole.


If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.
 
2013-05-15 01:22:52 PM

mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.


If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.
 
2013-05-15 01:23:05 PM

mistrmind: Obamite


Hahaha, you could not be more wrong.
 
2013-05-15 01:24:23 PM

FarkedOver: mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.

If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.


Pointing out right-wing stupidity == you must be a Democrat, because everyone in the country is engaged in the eternal and implacable struggle between right-wing capitalist and far right-wing capitalist.
 
2013-05-15 01:25:40 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.

If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.

Pointing out right-wing stupidity == you must be a Democrat, because everyone in the country is engaged in the eternal and implacable struggle between right-wing capitalist and far right-wing capitalist.


Hahaha.... Dear Leader, Sam Webb of CPUSA seems to think so.  Farker constantly endorses democrats. it's sickening.
 
2013-05-15 01:26:38 PM

FarkedOver: A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: mistrmind: If I had a dime for every Obamite on this thread, I'd be able to pay off the National Debt.

If you think A Dark Evil Omen voted for Obama or even supports Obama, you are out of your damn mind.

Pointing out right-wing stupidity == you must be a Democrat, because everyone in the country is engaged in the eternal and implacable struggle between right-wing capitalist and far right-wing capitalist.

Hahaha.... Dear Leader, Sam Webb of CPUSA seems to think so.  Farker constantly endorses democrats. it's sickening.


Yeah, but the CPUSA is kind of a joke anyway. At least they're not the RCP, at least the CPUSA is just feckless instead of a kind of weird worrisome cult.
 
2013-05-15 01:33:46 PM

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-15 01:54:57 PM
Maud Dib:
Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government....
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 552x375]


Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?
 
2013-05-15 02:05:35 PM

BojanglesPaladin: total number of jobs


Obama has already created more private-sector jobs than Bush did.
 
2013-05-15 02:06:13 PM

cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?


The people you are referring to are the ones who are reminding you that admitting the IRS farked up does not mean admitting Obama directed the IRS to make partisan attacks on the TEA Party.
 
2013-05-15 02:09:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?


Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508
 
2013-05-15 02:19:14 PM

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?

Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508


I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia. (The stimulus and ACA weren't passed on 21JAN2009.) Maybe take the last 3 years of a term, plus the first year of the next (or even an overlapping year, so a "term" is 5 years), in an effort to get a better sense of how the president shaped the growth of  job numbers.
 
2013-05-15 02:24:52 PM
Actually learn about an event before rushing to judgement on it?!?!

AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!!
 
2013-05-15 02:30:37 PM

lennavan: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

The people you are referring to are the ones who are reminding you that admitting the IRS farked up does not mean admitting Obama directed the IRS to make partisan attacks on the TEA Party.


Did I say such?
 
2013-05-15 02:33:08 PM

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?

Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508


I believe congresses have quite a bit to do with these numbers as well as various funded, unfunded, and underfunded programs.

Dr Dreidel: I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia.


As would I.
 
2013-05-15 02:45:47 PM

Dr Dreidel: I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia. (The stimulus and ACA weren't passed on 21JAN2009.) Maybe take the last 3 years of a term, plus the first year of the next (or even an overlapping year, so a "term" is 5 years), in an effort to get a better sense of how the president shaped the growth of  job numbers.


thepoliticalcarnival.net

This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.
 
2013-05-15 02:46:50 PM
Am I the only one who thinks screening any "charity" that shares the name of a political party is a good idea?
 
2013-05-15 02:49:36 PM

RminusQ: This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.


I've seen this graph quite a few times. It always makes me wonder what happened in 2002-2007.
 
2013-05-15 02:50:30 PM
How can a primarily non-political social welfare organization be targeted for political reasons in the approval of their 501(c)3 application?
 
2013-05-15 02:52:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: Do you have a similar graph that shows the same comparison with either total number of jobs or total dollar amounts?

Well, you can create your own graph:

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-presidents-which-party-create-more-jobs-de mo cratic-or-republican-408508

I believe congresses have quite a bit to do with these numbers as well as various funded, unfunded, and underfunded programs.



HOLY CRAP DUDE HOLY CRAP.  COME BACK HERE WITH THOSE GOALPOSTS.

He posted a graph comparing presidents with government jobs.  You asked for a similar graph that shows the same comparison with total jobs.  The same comparison being comparing presidents with jobs.  So I give you the numbers and you come back with a comment about Congress?

HOLY CRAP DUDE.  I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.
 
2013-05-15 02:55:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: RminusQ: This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.

I've seen this graph quite a few times. It always makes me wonder what happened in 2002-2007.


You always wonder, after all of the times you have seen that graph, and yet you have never googled it?  Yeah right dude, troll on.

You're just asking questions, not actually searching for answers.
 
2013-05-15 02:58:53 PM
Really, what we should be concerned about sheeple.
 
2013-05-15 03:00:22 PM

RminusQ: Dr Dreidel: I'd actually like to see a comparison of the "raw" data (what you presented) with "time-shifted" data that takes into account legacy programs and legislative inertia. (The stimulus and ACA weren't passed on 21JAN2009.) Maybe take the last 3 years of a term, plus the first year of the next (or even an overlapping year, so a "term" is 5 years), in an effort to get a better sense of how the president shaped the growth of  job numbers.

[thepoliticalcarnival.net image 600x313]

This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.


So now we have a single data point for the larger effort.
 
2013-05-15 03:03:14 PM

mistrmind: Really, what we should be concerned about sheeple.


But if he starts getting involved he will persecute us all!!!!
 
2013-05-15 03:13:32 PM
or you could read "The Boy who Cried Wolf"
 
2013-05-15 03:16:17 PM

Maud Dib: mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 552x375]


Crikey. Who in the hell makes a graph where each curve should start at 1.o0, and then (1) leaves out that point on every curve, and (2) makes the tick marks 0.97, 0.99, 1.01, 1.03, when they should be 0.96, 0.98, 1.00,1.02, 1.04? It seems like it's intentionally designed to annoy engineers with OCD.
 
2013-05-15 03:29:27 PM

lennavan: HOLY CRAP DUDE. I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.


You seem to be very excitable.

Also, I'm not sure you understand the proper use of the "goalpost" trope. See, I haven't stated a position or a counter-position, so there are no "goalposts" in the first place.

Perhaps before you decide that you need to go all CAP screamy, you should first confirm that there is an argument. But then again, I suspect you don't really need a reason.
 
2013-05-15 03:30:51 PM

lennavan: BojanglesPaladin: RminusQ: This is the "legacy" of the Bush administration making way for the progress of the Obama administration.

I've seen this graph quite a few times. It always makes me wonder what happened in 2002-2007.

You always wonder, after all of the times you have seen that graph, and yet you have never googled it?  Yeah right dude, troll on.

You're just asking questions, not actually searching for answers.


Can I chime in on BojanglesPaladin's point?

I think the comparative jobs growth chart as shown is becoming increasingly unfair, as presented. Two years, three years ago, it did make a clear visual and impactful reference to the recession starting, very clearly, under Bush's watch. That's fine. It's true.

But at this stage -- four-plus years into Obama's presidency, it no longer addresses that point. Now it looks like cherry-picking.
 
2013-05-15 03:33:07 PM

lennavan: HOLY CRAP DUDE.  I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.


I have him farkied as "stage 2 lolbertarian". Forget it, Jake.
 
2013-05-15 04:04:32 PM

PartTimeBuddha: But at this stage -- four-plus years into Obama's presidency, it no longer addresses that point. Now it looks like cherry-picking.


Pretty much. It is the clearly intentional decision to start the graph after the economic disaster was in full swing that makes it slightly suspect.

It's also a somewhat pointless graph, because after you have hit bottom, there's really nowhere else to go but up.

As a comparison, this graph, while not perfect, shows a broader view:
jerrykhachoyan.com

When you dont cherry pick your starting point, it becomes more clear that both Presidents had periods of job growth and both Presidents had part of a catastrophic drop in employment.

Too often the graph is used to "prove" that Bush broke the economy, or to "prove" that Obama fixed the economy.

But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.

And when I look at this graph, it makes me wonder what happened in 200-2003...
 
2013-05-15 04:27:05 PM

mistrmind: xanadian: cman: Will this finally shut people up and make them admit that the IRS farked up?

Yes, but the IRS is governed by the Department of the Treasury, which is led by the Secretary of the Treasury, who has President Obama as his boss.

Some people have the mentality that because Obama is the "captain of his ship," that he must bear the brunt of any wrongdoing by his subordinates.  It's like Star Trek 6 all over again.

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


you may have missed a couple of talking points, I'm not sure.
 
2013-05-15 05:01:17 PM

odinsposse: Except their policies did target conservative groups. There weren't any equivalent flags for terms like "progressive" or "environmental" Literally everyone agrees that the IRS screwed up, including this report, and trying to hand wave away an obvious problem makes liberals look worse and conservative conspiracy theorists look more credible. So stop doing that.


If you actually read the report you'd see the inference that applications are regularly grouped into bundles so they can be further scrutinized.

I don't really see anything nefarious in this case, although it does seem pretty sloppy and like an awful lot of bureaucracy.
 
2013-05-15 05:01:53 PM
Grungehamster:

The next big thing is Boehner is out there now demanding jail time for those involved in this. Sorry, but if nobody went to jail over the Pigford snafu I highly doubt increased scrutiny of applications that never actually rejected anyone based on the requirements will result in people behind bars.

I like how he's asking who's going to go to jail.  He's already had the trial handed down the verdict and passed sentence - now if he could just find a damned defendant to apply it to, he'd be golden!

/To be fair, unlike many of his colleagues in Congress, he does not appear to have a law degree
 
2013-05-15 05:06:07 PM

Doctor Funkenstein: Eh, it's bullshiat that the baggers were singled out and it sounds like the IRS will rightfully pay for it and get their act together. That said, the tea party members and supporters can still go suck shiat from a giraffe's dick for being the destructive, ignorant assholes that they are.


I'm pretty sure that's not how Giraffes work.

/Let me check Conservapedia
 
2013-05-15 05:11:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: PartTimeBuddha: But at this stage -- four-plus years into Obama's presidency, it no longer addresses that point. Now it looks like cherry-picking.

Pretty much. It is the clearly intentional decision to start the graph after the economic disaster was in full swing that makes it slightly suspect.

It's also a somewhat pointless graph, because after you have hit bottom, there's really nowhere else to go but up.

As a comparison, this graph, while not perfect, shows a broader view:
[jerrykhachoyan.com image 800x480]

When you dont cherry pick your starting point, it becomes more clear that both Presidents had periods of job growth and both Presidents had part of a catastrophic drop in employment.

Too often the graph is used to "prove" that Bush broke the economy, or to "prove" that Obama fixed the economy.

But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.

And when I look at this graph, it makes me wonder what happened in 200-2003...


After-effects of the tech bubble bursting.
 
2013-05-15 05:14:57 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net

Wonder why everyone hates politicians.
 
2013-05-15 05:38:32 PM

RevMercutio: After-effects of the tech bubble bursting.


True. I remember THAT boom and bust particularly well...
 
2013-05-15 05:39:13 PM
Democrats in congress will have to vote to impeach Obama on the IRS stuff or else they are telling the next Republican administration that it's fine to target all Democrats. Since Democrats' most trusted money handler, Tim Geithner, was a tax cheating criminal, it will be like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun once Republicans get a hold of the treasury again. Unless you can keep Republicans out of the White House forever.
 
2013-05-15 05:49:37 PM

BojanglesPaladin: lennavan: HOLY CRAP DUDE. I can't even see the damn goalposts anymore.

You seem to be very excitable.


HOLY CRAP DUDE YOU ASKED FOR A CITATION ABOUT PRESIDENTS AND THEN BIATCHED ABOUT CONGRESS.

HOLY CRAP HOLY CRAP HOLY CRAP.

Epoch_Zero: I have him farkied as "stage 2 lolbertarian". Forget it, Jake.


I know, I'm just screwin around with him.  This IRS stuff has got him in a tizzy.  Yesterday the lulz were when he said he was just agreeing with Obama's admission of wrongdoing.  So I asked him to quote Obama.

By the way, I'm still waiting on that quote Bojangles.
 
2013-05-15 05:50:16 PM
wow, it's almost like unemployment doubled under Bush.
i blame fartboingo
 
2013-05-15 05:53:58 PM

Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.


If you name yourself 'Al Queada', I have no sympathy when you get profiled.
 
2013-05-15 05:54:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Too often the graph is used to "prove" that Bush broke the economy, or to "prove" that Obama fixed the economy.


Um...  That's actually exactly what your graph shows:

jerrykhachoyan.com
 
2013-05-15 05:55:02 PM

PsiChick: Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.

If you name yourself 'Al Queada', I have no sympathy when you get profiled.


I'm naming my new non-profit TEA Party Patriot Al Qaedas for Animal Rights.
 
2013-05-15 06:02:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: PsiChick: Fart_Machine: Citrate1007: A group opposed to paying taxes deserves greater scrutiny from the IRS by definition.

Except they were flagging them using key words instead of looking at the actual organization. It's bullshait profiling but the people crying the loudest wouldn't have a problem with doing it based on skin color by law enforcement.

If you name yourself 'Al Queada', I have no sympathy when you get profiled.

I'm naming my new non-profit TEA Party Patriot Al Qaedas for Animal Rights.


DOOO EEEET.

/For clarification: The IRS was in the wrong here and deserve to get their asses kicked. But if you name yourself the Tea Party and try to claim you have tax-exempt status as a charity...
 
2013-05-15 06:23:27 PM
BojanglesPaladin:
But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.


It shows they declined in the last year of the Bush administrations and during Obama's first year.
Or am I misreading it?
 
2013-05-15 06:44:48 PM

lennavan: Um... That's actually exactly what your graph shows:


The fact that you seem to believe that is illustrative.

It is a single data point graph, absent actual proof of casuality. One could as easily point to the election of democrats and the instalation of Nancy Pelosi in 2007 as the cause. Or perhaps one could argue that it was really the staggered increase in the minimum wage begining in 2007....

And that would be equally unsupported by this graph. The graph shows only a data set, it does not provide a proof of causation.
 
2013-05-15 06:49:15 PM

Dansker: BojanglesPaladin:
But the graph shows neither. It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down in the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far.

It shows they declined in the last year of the Bush administrations and during Obama's first year.
Or am I misreading it?


That's an excellent clarification. The downward trend did not continue past Obama's first year. As I said earlier, once you have hit bottom, there's no where to go but up, and the job rate hit bottom during his first year, following a trend established before he took office.

I would revise my statement:
"It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down, and did not return to net positive growthin the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far."
 
2013-05-15 06:50:46 PM

cameroncrazy1984: A liberal group took 9 months to get approved. I'm still not seeing the problem here.


-One liberal group that you made up took 9 months to approve for an unknown reason
-hundreds of conservative groups had their applications unfairly scrutinized just because they were conservative groups.

The fact that you think there is at all some equivalence removes all doubt over how big of a moron you are

Witty_Retort: Oh wait. That was a progressive group.
Number of Tea Party groups rejected: 0


This isn't about being rejected.  This is about the IRS demanding absurd amounts of nonsensical information before processing an application.  A tireless group which spends 2-3 years giving the IRS everything it wants is still discriminated against even if it isn't rejected in the end.

A Dark Evil Omen: Now, the question is, who is dumber, him for saying it or you for defending it?


You're trying to deny the actions of an office which has already admitted wrongdoing in regards to said actions, so If anyone rode the short bus to the thread, i'd say it was you.

Car_Ramrod: Is it because they were conservative, or is it because they were blatantly using political names for what is supposed to be a non-political entity? What non-TEA Party conservative groups were being targeted?


I dont have information on every single group, along with their name and purpose.  Rest assured, if a true political advocacy group applied for tax-exempt 501 C4 and got a fair review and was denied, I'd be fine with it.  If there's a conservative Christian or Jewish outreach group that had to submit the names of everyone in the group along with their family members and what books they all ready and that other groups dont endure the same scrutiny then I have a problem with that.

Not only were the applications delayed or given more scrutiny but there are reports that non profit application information was leaked to left-wing rags from the IRS

The latest startling claim came Tuesday from an unexpected source -- ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning progressive journalism group -- which said the same Cincinnati IRS branch accused of targeting conservative groups released nine confidential applications of conservative groups to them last year.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/new-irs-scandal-echoes-age n cy-problems-past/#ixzz2TP8iPDIO
 
2013-05-15 06:57:14 PM

o5iiawah: A Dark Evil Omen: Now, the question is, who is dumber, him for saying it or you for defending it?

You're trying to deny the actions of an office which has already admitted wrongdoing in regards to said actions, so If anyone rode the short bus to the thread, i'd say it was you.


This was the post I was responding to:

Well Obama is creating a larger and larger government.  So big that he himself can no longer control it.  In that case, it begs the question, how strong he is as a leader?  (Answer: Not very, if at all).  Also it's strange that this was taking place during the election year and specifically against those that are his enemies.  It reeks of McCarthyism.

Then we can go back to how during his campaign he promised "transparency" in his administration yet we have a constant barrage of cover ups for "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.


Notice how it says nothing about the IRS? Notice how it's stupid as hell? Notice how it's what you're white-knighting? It's not like the rest of the thread vanished, you wannabe Rove sack of lies, you.
 
2013-05-15 07:13:39 PM

BojanglesPaladin:
That's an excellent clarification. The downward trend did not continue past Obama's first year. As I said earlier, once you have hit bottom, there's no where to go but up,


Are you serious? Job rates can go much, much lower than they did in the US. You got nowhere near The Bottom.

and the job rate hit bottom during his first year, following a trend established before he took office.

An objective observer might even describe the slowing jobloss as a reversal of the established trend of accellerating jobloss in the preceding year.

I would revise my statement:
"It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down, and did not return to net positive growthin the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far."


That's not really a revision. And the graph shows they returned to positive growth in March, 2010, barely 13 months into his first term. Describing that as "not within the first few years" is stretching the truth far beyond breaking point.
 
2013-05-15 07:17:19 PM

Dansker: BojanglesPaladin:
That's an excellent clarification. The downward trend did not continue past Obama's first year. As I said earlier, once you have hit bottom, there's no where to go but up,

Are you serious? Job rates can go much, much lower than they did in the US. You got nowhere near The Bottom.

and the job rate hit bottom during his first year, following a trend established before he took office.

An objective observer might even describe the slowing jobloss as a reversal of the established trend of accellerating jobloss in the preceding year.

I would revise my statement:
"It shows (unsuprisingly) that private sector jobs went down, and did not return to net positive growthin the first few years of Obama's term, and improved during his term so far."

That's not really a revision. And the graph shows they returned to positive growth in March, 2010, barely 13 months into his first term. Describing that as "not within the first few years" is stretching the truth far beyond breaking point.


Since you insist on turning this into a jobs thread, let me point out there are almost certainly going to be some IRS employees added to the jobless rolls. Thanks a lot, Obama.
 
2013-05-15 07:34:46 PM

Cletus C.:
Since you insist on turning this into a jobs thread,

I'm actually trying to turn it into a weed-out-tendentious-prose-and-strive-for-accuracy-in-writing thread, but I won't be surprised by failure. It seems to come with the territory.

 
2013-05-15 07:39:17 PM

Dansker: Are you serious? Job rates can go much, much lower than they did in the US. You got nowhere near The Bottom.


I am serious. We can only speculate on what could have happened, But what we CAN say is where the bottom actually appears to have been. The graph may not provide causal information, but it does show that.

Dansker: That's not really a revision. And the graph shows they returned to positive growth in March, 2010, barely 13 months into his first term. Describing that as "not within the first few years" is stretching the truth far beyond breaking point.


I have no objection if you would feel better replacing "not within the first few years" to "not within the first years".

Cletus C.: Since you insist on turning this into a jobs thread, let me point out there are almost certainly going to be some IRS employees added to the jobless rolls. Thanks a lot, Obama.


Ha!

But on the flip side, making the IRS responsible for tracking and enforcement of the ACA individual mandate means many more IRS jobs (over a thousand as I recall) so I'm thinking there is still a net gain.

Here is the info:
The IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 shows that the agency is seeking at least 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
 
2013-05-15 08:07:21 PM
BojanglesPaladin:
I am serious. We can only speculate on what could have happened, But what we CAN say is where the bottom actually appears to have been.

That's where it happened to bottom out, it's not where the only possible way was up, as you speculated. It's a completely baseless claim that it couldn't have declined further.

The graph may not provide causal information, but it does show that.

It does not show that there was no way to go but up at that point.

I have no objection if you would feel better replacing "not within the first few years" to "not within the first years".

Brilliant, another non-revision.
How is thirteen months not within the first years? It's in the beginning of the second year.
You're not counting 2008 as the first year of the Obama administration, are you?
 
2013-05-15 08:14:52 PM

Dansker: BojanglesPaladin:
I am serious. We can only speculate on what could have happened, But what we CAN say is where the bottom actually appears to have been.

That's where it happened to bottom out, it's not where the only possible way was up, as you speculated. It's a completely baseless claim that it couldn't have declined further.

The graph may not provide causal information, but it does show that.

It does not show that there was no way to go but up at that point.

I have no objection if you would feel better replacing "not within the first few years" to "not within the first years".

Brilliant, another non-revision.
How is thirteen months not within the first years? It's in the beginning of the second year.
You're not counting 2008 as the first year of the Obama administration, are you?


Didn't Obama assume the throne Januray 1st, 2008 which was 8 months before his nomination, 11 months before his election and 13 months before his Inaguration?
 
2013-05-15 08:15:29 PM
Why is ANYONE surprised that the IRS overreached itself? This decade they picked on the right-wing groups; in the 60's it was the lefties' turn. In between they cheerfully screw anyone who catches their fancy. They may be acting on orders from above; but it's just as likely--and possibly MORE likely--that they're just a bunch of power-mad bureaucrats who have the ability and the authority to f*ck with anyone and zero oversight to stop them from doing so.

So this time they got caught targeting the Teahadists because there are some liberal IRS agents in the offices (boo-hoo, I can't believe anyone is crying over that); a while back it was some hippie environmental groups (ditto). If it had been Evil CEOs, the hand would have been on the other foot now, I'm sure. IT'S THE IRS, THEY DO THIS CRAP. Maybe, just maybe, the fault isn't in this particular administration, it's in the rotten, evil IRS bureaucracy, has anyone even considered that possibility?
 
2013-05-15 08:21:47 PM
My local paper had this as one of their on-line polls:

Should the Justice Department investigate the IRS over allegations it targeted tea party organizations for extra scrutiny?

I wonder what the results would be if it was written as:

Should the Justice Department investigate the TSA over allegations it targeted Middle East Muslim passengers for extra scrutiny?

just wonderin'
 
2013-05-15 08:33:14 PM

cybrwzrd:
Didn't Obama assume the throne Januray 1st, 2008 which was 8 months before his nomination, 11 months before his election and 13 months before his Inaguration?


The lizards swore him in as leader of the shadow World Government in 2001. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, has since unfolded according to his plans, and the entire planet is now living with the results of decades of Obama's evil and incompetent machinations.
I've already said too much.
 
2013-05-15 09:40:18 PM

o5iiawah: hundreds of conservative groups had their applications unfairly scrutinized just because they were conservative groups has certain words in their titles.


Fixed it for you.  Now head down to the hardware store for that sale on nails and wooden planks.
 
2013-05-15 10:25:36 PM

Fart_Machine: Fixed it for you.  Now head down to the hardware store for that sale on nails and wooden planks.


like "Conservative" "Liberty and "Constitution" Also "Tea Party"

You see, the thing about organizations is that generally, you can tell what they are up to by the words in their title.  For example
The ACLU isn't a chefs/hospitality union
the NRA isn't a club for amateur pilots
and the NAACP isn't a group fighting to end animal cruelty

Also, calling everything a "Strawman" doesn't hide the fact that you're a moron with no argument.
 
2013-05-15 10:57:57 PM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Fixed it for you.  Now head down to the hardware store for that sale on nails and wooden planks.

like "Conservative" "Liberty and "Constitution" Also "Tea Party"

You see, the thing about organizations is that generally, you can tell what they are up to by the words in their title.  For example
The ACLU isn't a chefs/hospitality union
the NRA isn't a club for amateur pilots
and the NAACP isn't a group fighting to end animal cruelty

Also, calling everything a "Strawman" doesn't hide the fact that you're a moron with no argument.


The groups were never evaluated for mission statements or ideology, they were flagged because of certain words in their titles.  Not one of these groups was denied either however some chose to withhold their applications.  Do you ever read about the stories in question before making yourself sound like a complete idiot?
 
2013-05-15 11:34:43 PM

Fart_Machine: The groups were never evaluated for mission statements or ideology, they were flagged because of certain words in their titles. Not one of these groups was denied either however some chose to withhold their applications.


So it's exactly like how Republicans want people who look Middle Eastern to be screened more thoroughly at airports, even if there's no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing?
 
2013-05-15 11:37:13 PM

MrEricSir: Fart_Machine: The groups were never evaluated for mission statements or ideology, they were flagged because of certain words in their titles. Not one of these groups was denied either however some chose to withhold their applications.

So it's exactly like how Republicans want people who look Middle Eastern to be screened more thoroughly at airports, even if there's no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing?


Exactly!
 
2013-05-16 01:17:35 AM

Fart_Machine: MrEricSir: Fart_Machine: The groups were never evaluated for mission statements or ideology, they were flagged because of certain words in their titles. Not one of these groups was denied either however some chose to withhold their applications.

So it's exactly like how Republicans want people who look Middle Eastern to be screened more thoroughly at airports, even if there's no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing?

Exactly!


I still can't figure out where anyone thought the IRS wouldn't be as mean and evil to anyone they were allowed to be. It's what they live for, after all. They are totally non-partisan in their fist-f*ckery.
 
2013-05-16 07:17:14 AM

Fart_Machine: Not one of these groups was denied either however some chose to withhold their applications.  Do you ever read about the stories in question before making yourself sound like a complete idiot?


It seems pretty clear that you havent read the story, or the IRS apology

"Oh, well nobody was denied" is a crap argument and doesn't even address the actual complaint.  You should feel bad.  The issue is that they endured scrutiny which wasn't given to other groups based solely on as you say it "Words in their title"

You can deny someone due process by making it unbelievably difficult to exercise said right.  But it isn't like you and your retard crew dont bring this up whenever there's a voter ID thread.
 
2013-05-16 07:20:43 AM

MrEricSir: So it's exactly like how Republicans want people who look Middle Eastern to be screened more thoroughly at airports, even if there's no reason to suspect them of wrongdoing?


Would that be a provision in the Patriot act which passed 98-1 in the GWB administration and a Democrat majority renewed in the Obama administration?  REPPUUUUUUBLICANSSSSS!!!!!
 
2013-05-16 10:49:21 AM

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Not one of these groups was denied either however some chose to withhold their applications.  Do you ever read about the stories in question before making yourself sound like a complete idiot?

It seems pretty clear that you havent read the story, or the IRS apology

"Oh, well nobody was denied" is a crap argument and doesn't even address the actual complaint.  You should feel bad.  The issue is that they endured scrutiny which wasn't given to other groups based solely on as you say it "Words in their title"

You can deny someone due process by making it unbelievably difficult to exercise said right.  But it isn't like you and your retard crew dont bring this up whenever there's a voter ID thread.


Probably they weren't flagged because they lacked those words? Do you enjoy making yourself look dumb? They weren't targeted because they were conservative you dope. They were profiled because of their titles. Obviously it wasn't unbelievably difficult because the majority of them were accepted. Congratulations you just made my argument for me and didn't even know it. But I'm sure profiling is OK based on skin color amirite?
 
2013-05-16 11:53:53 AM

o5iiawah: -hundreds of conservative groups had their applications unfairly scrutinized just because they were conservative groups.


I listened to a radio show last night where two or three leaders of self-identified "targeted" groups aired their grievances.

Apparently they were given questionnaires.  Questionnaires, people!  Asking such irrelevant things about a social welfare & education organization seeking tax-exempt status as "what do you intend to teach, to what intended audience, and by what methods", as if that were relevant!  One of them refused to answer his, because the questions were so darned intrusive.

And that fine Patriot, like everyone else on the show had his organization's application  denied approved.

TYRANNY!
 
2013-05-16 12:07:24 PM

o5iiawah: If there's a conservative Christian or Jewish outreach group that had to submit the names of everyone in the group along with their family members and what books they all read


I'm sure you have a citation for that happening, ever, to anyone.

(Hint: Submitting the "names of donors" and "books intended to be used in the education efforts" is not the same thing as what you said.)

o5iiawah: unbelievably difficult


You poor thing.  How it must pain you to bleed for those poor, questionnaire-oppressed Social Welfare groups!

Think of the number 2 pencils, people!
 
2013-05-16 12:47:58 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?

Sounds good, it'll collapse the state and bring about the revolution.


Huh?  

cameroncrazy1984: trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?

Yes, clearly the solution is to resort to a regressive tax that doesn't fix the deficit and still needs the IRS to collect it. Brilliant plan!


It isn't regressive.  It is as progressive as you want it.  Make the pre-bate $10k per citizen, and a family of 4 earning $40k pays ZERO.

And we have taxes, therefore we will have an IRS.  Simplify the collection process and eliminate the need for a review of individuals' and businesses' tax exempt status.

Hobodeluxe: trailerpimp: Fair tax anyone?

yes but let's base it on assets and not salaried income.


Um, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax, so, it has nothing to do with salary or assets.
 
Displayed 172 of 172 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report