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  
•       •       •

4469 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 22 of 172 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report