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.

(Politico)   "IRS Scandal: What we still haven't learned" Like how this is, you know, a scandal?   (politico.com) divider line 131
    More: Followup, IRS, tax exemption, House Ways and Means Committee, scandals  
•       •       •

1060 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2013 at 9:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
MFK
2013-05-17 09:27:34 AM  
Jesus, an entire article of begging the question.

You suck Politico
 
2013-05-17 09:30:26 AM  
media.salon.com
 
2013-05-17 09:30:36 AM  
Entire article to save time: "We know nothing. This is bad news...for Obama"
 
2013-05-17 09:31:36 AM  
Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.
 
2013-05-17 09:32:43 AM  
So these "non profit" groups are not supposed to be political groups..  Yet "they" complain that conservative agenda groups were targeted for extensive audits. My question is how do/did they know that that these groups are conservative?  (ref: first sentence)
 
2013-05-17 09:34:37 AM  
If it was bad for Tricky Dick to do it it's bad for Fartbongo to do it.
 
2013-05-17 09:35:13 AM  
ITT: Republicans throw a bunch of feces at Obama and hope that some of it makes him smell bad.

/also true for any thread involving "scandals"
 
2013-05-17 09:35:37 AM  
Well, it's more a scandal than Benghazi, that much I'll admit.  Seems to me that it's just a case of some bureaucrats going on their own little power trip, which probably happens all over the country on every level.  Sorry, GOP, this one isn't really going anywhere either.
 
2013-05-17 09:35:48 AM  

ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.


The IRS, a tax-collecting agency, scrutinized groups that oppose paying taxes.
 
2013-05-17 09:36:05 AM  
I thought we learned our lesson during Nixon not to allow the president direct control of the IRS?
 
2013-05-17 09:36:08 AM  
When you hamstring the law that prevents political bodies from applying for tax-exempt status as social welfare groups, you then put the onus of vetting those political bodies as actual social welfare groups on the IRS agents. Causing the IRS agents to investigate the political bodies in order to prevent tax fraud. Obama just fired a guy and let another guy resign over absolutely nothing but GOP pantshiatting stupidity.

Taa-daa. This country is doomed.

tl;dr: Republicans still angry about black president.
 
2013-05-17 09:36:10 AM  

mrlewish: So these "non profit" groups are not supposed to be political groups..  Yet "they" complain that conservative agenda groups were targeted for extensive audits. My question is how do/did they know that that these groups are conservative?  (ref: first sentence)


Well, the GROUP can be political, but its activities/spending can't be. I'll leave it to a philosopher to determine what the difference might be, but Mitt Romney and Grover Norquist can start a "Family Values" 501(c)(4) that is aimed at abstinence only sex-ed and ending abortion, and as long as the bulk of their spending is not on political campaigns, it's all kosher.

// and I think the "issue ad" dodge is flimsier than Jenna Haze's nightie
 
2013-05-17 09:36:15 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: If it was bad for Tricky Dick to do it it's bad for Fartbongo to do it.


fartbongo didn't do it. that's the difference.
 
2013-05-17 09:37:17 AM  
How did all this "screening" get started?
Not much has come out about how the IRS wound up in this mess in the first place - namely, how the screening of conservative groups really began.



IDK, My BFF Citizen's United?
 
2013-05-17 09:38:40 AM  
I guess what I don't know is how groups looking to dodge taxes, applied to dodge taxes, got approved?  That is the larger scandal, in my mind.

Political parties and groups formed for political purpose are taxable. And should be paying taxes, and that groups that were formed for entirely political purposes were granted tax free status IS an issue. Just not the one that seems to be causing the outrage.
 
2013-05-17 09:38:40 AM  
Also, I should probably note here that Republicans were perfectly fine with heavily scrutinizing "liberal" social welfare groups years ago, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's time to board the WAAAAAAAAAAAH-mbulance.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/05/rep ub licans_angry_at_irs_targeting_tea_party_gop_defends_501c3_and_501c4.ht ml
 
2013-05-17 09:39:49 AM  

ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.


Yeah... not really. Liberal groups were sent the same lists of questions as conservative groups. And at least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status, while no conservative groups were. The IRS "scandal" isn't one. Neither is Benghazi. The story of the government tracking AP reporter phone calls is a little more interesting, but hardly Nixonian.
 
2013-05-17 09:40:15 AM  

ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.


Extra scrutiny for obvious astroturf organizations that are purely political while claiming not to be? Say it ain't so!

Can you find one Dhimmycrap that any Tea Party affiliated organization endorsed since 2008?
 
2013-05-17 09:41:44 AM  

Notabunny: ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.

Yeah... not really. Liberal groups were sent the same lists of questions as conservative groups. And at least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status, while no conservative groups were. The IRS "scandal" isn't one. Neither is Benghazi. The story of the government tracking AP reporter phone calls is a little more interesting, but hardly Nixonian.


Even then, there's no question that what the DOJ did is perfectly legal thanks to the massive growth of the surveillance state post-9/11.

/thanks Bush
 
2013-05-17 09:41:57 AM  

Notabunny: ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.

Yeah... not really. Liberal groups were sent the same lists of questions as conservative groups. And at least one liberal group was denied tax-exempt status, while no conservative groups were. The IRS "scandal" isn't one. Neither is Benghazi. The story of the government tracking AP reporter phone calls is a little more interesting, but hardly Nixonian.


Remember when we were supposed to go to the ends of the earth to track down leaks of classified information? Those were the days!
 
2013-05-17 09:42:46 AM  
I'll admit that even though I read a ton of news, I either haven't been reading enough on this possible scandal or maybe it's just that other articles are as bad as this one on details.

where these tea party grops were asking for a tax exception as charitable entities? why shouldn't the word "party" raise a flag about these organizations not being charitable but political? I'll almost give them the word "patriot" as something that maybe shouldn't be getting the IRS' attention... assuming that at some point someone didn't catch on to the fact that groups that got rejected for their "party" label weren't just changing the names to things with "patriot" in it.

or am I wrong in my interpretation of facts here?
 
2013-05-17 09:44:33 AM  

ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.


Incompetence at the lower levels of a bureaucracy you say?  Stop the presses.
 
2013-05-17 09:46:30 AM  
This all strikes me as nothing more than Republicans fishing for something that will give them another Whitewater. All investigations! All day! All night! All the time! Y'know, there are real problems which really need to be solved. It's a shame half our government isn't interested in them.
 
2013-05-17 09:48:05 AM  

FlashHarry: Smeggy Smurf: If it was bad for Tricky Dick to do it it's bad for Fartbongo to do it.

fartbongo didn't do it. that's the difference.


Of course he didn't.
It was two anonymous, low-level IRS employees who have been disciplined in an undisclosed fashion.
See?  All better!
 
2013-05-17 09:49:21 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.

The IRS, a tax-collecting agency, scrutinized groups that oppose paying taxes.


And they only did so because they applied for tax-exemption status. If they had applied for a 501(c)6, this never would have happened because (c)6 organizations are allowed to be as political as they want. They just don't qualify for tax exempt donations, and they are required to disclose donor information. The scandal here is that the IRS was actually doing its goddamn job, but did so in a way that appears driven by political ideology. The people who should be upset about this are legitimate 501(c)3, and (c)4 for that matter, organizations because these conservative groups are crying about having to go through the same process, which includes heightened scrutiny and additional paperwork at times. I mean, sh*t, I run a 501(c)3 and it took us 2 years to get our status as a tax exempt charity, and we constantly were having to fill out additional forms and documents. It wasn't because we were potentially political - it's a charity to help people with medical and mental health disabilities - it's because the process to qualify is not simple, intuitive, or quick. Add to that the influx of conservative groups that applied for (c)3 status around that time and I can very easily see IRS folks conveying the need for a closer look at (c)3 applications that have politically conservative sounding names. Anyone who is upset at this is either ignorant of the process (which is not a big deal; not everyone needs to know this stuff) or just looking to cause trouble.
 
2013-05-17 09:49:27 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Well, the GROUP can be political, but its activities/spending can't be. I'll leave it to a philosopher to determine what the difference might be, but Mitt Romney and Grover Norquist can start a "Family Values" 501(c)(4) that is aimed at abstinence only sex-ed and ending abortion, and as long as the bulk of their spending is not on political campaigns, it's all kosher.

// and I think the "issue ad" dodge is flimsier than Jenna Haze's nightie


Sad thing is, the "issue ad" dodge is all that matters. This is nothing short of the tea party as a political movement getting caught red-handed trying to exploit  Citizens United to the hilt in order to corrode the last vestiges of an  appearance of electoral legitimacy, and Republicans predictably bringing out the torches and pitchforks to defend their opaque, unaccountable, and limitless monetary gravy train.
 
2013-05-17 09:50:08 AM  

ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.


Folks really need to read what the issue is instead of glancing over the headlines and coming up with a position. From another article:

All were applying for a tax-exempt designation under section 501 (c) of the tax code. This section has at least 25 tax-exempt designations, and the tea party groups were applying under a provision - 501 (c) 4 - that would treat them as social welfare organizations. This allows the groups to raise money from donors and get involved in politics, as long as that's not their primary activity. Importantly, the donors are not disclosed publicly.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/16/4240070/in-irs-scandal-why-is-any -political.html#storylink=cpy">http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/16/4 240070/in-irs-scandal-why-is-any -political.html#storylink=cpy


Now, the exemption that all of these groups were applying for had a rule that they could not be formed for the sole purpose of taking money from donors to get involved in politics. The Tea Party is a political group that uses terms such as "Patriot" to describe their organizations. Its not farking rocket science that the IRS is going to scrutinize a bunch of new organizations that sprout up with "Patriot" in their name. The hilarious thing about this "scandal" is that the people bitaching are the same folks who believe that more Arabs should be detained at airports because they fit a profile. They think that its ok for New York police to frisk millions of minorities because they fit a profile. But, when the people who fit the profile are...non-minorities, suddenly its wrong ro profile and everyone should be treated the same.
 
2013-05-17 09:58:22 AM  

Polly Ester: Of course he didn't.
It was two anonymous, low-level IRS employees who have been disciplined in an undisclosed fashion.
See?  All better!


you have evidence to the contrary? present it. i'm all ears.

now, if it comes out that obama directly ordered the IRS to harass tea party groups, then, yes, i'd say he's up there with tricky dick and he should resign or be impeached. somehow, i don't think that's the case, no matter how many teabaggers wish it were.
 
2013-05-17 10:01:52 AM  
As far as I can understand, it is a scandal because groups that came out and said we will do everything in our power to get the Republicans in office and avoid paying any taxes got audited to investigate if they were spending all their money to get Republicans elected and using a tax exempt status as a way to avoid paying any taxes.

Just a shame the president has no say over IRS policy now isn't it.
 
2013-05-17 10:02:49 AM  
Why won't Glen Beck answer questions about that murdered girl?  What is he hiding?
 
2013-05-17 10:03:43 AM  

ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.


So we shouldn't monitor radical muslim groups or armed militia groups?
 
2013-05-17 10:06:11 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: The hilarious thing about this "scandal" is that the people bitaching are the same folks who believe that more Arabs should be detained at airports because they fit a profile. They think that its ok for New York police to frisk millions of minorities because they fit a profile. But, when the people who fit the profile are...non-minorities, suddenly its wrong ro profile and everyone should be treated the same.


This, also this.
 
2013-05-17 10:06:31 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.

Folks really need to read what the issue is instead of glancing over the headlines and coming up with a position. From another article:

All were applying for a tax-exempt designation under section 501 (c) of the tax code. This section has at least 25 tax-exempt designations, and the tea party groups were applying under a provision - 501 (c) 4 - that would treat them as social welfare organizations. This allows the groups to raise money from donors and get involved in politics, as long as that's not their primary activity. Importantly, the donors are not disclosed publicly.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/16/4240070/in-irs-scandal-why-is-any -political.html#storylink=cpy">http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/16/4 240070/in-irs-scandal-why-is-any -political.html#storylink=cpy

Now, the exemption that all of these groups were applying for had a rule that they could not be formed for the sole purpose of taking money from donors to get involved in politics. The Tea Party is a political group that uses terms such as "Patriot" to describe their organizations. Its not farking rocket science that the IRS is going to scrutinize a bunch of new organizations that sprout up with "Patriot" in their name. The hilarious thing about this "scandal" is that the people bitaching are the same folks who believe that more Arabs should be detained at airports because they fit a profile. They think that its ok for New York police to frisk millions of minorities because they fit a profile. But, when the people who fit the profile are...non-minorities, suddenly its wrong ro profile and everyone should be treated the same.


And they call it, "The Aristocrats!"
 
2013-05-17 10:09:57 AM  

Kome: The scandal here is that the IRS was actually doing its goddamn job, but did so in a way that appears driven by political ideology.


Bingo. The core of the scandal seems not that conservative groups applying for 501(c)4 status were figuratively given an proctological exam via the nostrils, but that liberal groups applying for 501(c)4 status might NOT have been.
 
2013-05-17 10:10:02 AM  

Citrate1007: ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.

So we shouldn't monitor radical muslim groups or armed militia groups?


If they say "Death to America" or make threats against our Proud Nubian leader, yes. Absolutely.

If they haven't, leave them alone.

// why is this hard to understand?
// ExpressPork even said it - "BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS/SPEECH"
// words mean things, and your freedom to use them doesn't absolve you of the legal consequences
 
2013-05-17 10:13:39 AM  

Notabunny: This all strikes me as nothing more than Republicans fishing for something that will give them another Whitewater. All investigations! All day! All night! All the time! Y'know, there are real problems which really need to be solved. It's a shame half our government isn't interested in them.


All that shiat in Clinton's second term resulted in you guys getting Dubya.  I don't like where this is headed.
 
2013-05-17 10:13:56 AM  
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Questions-and-Answers-on-501%28c%29-O r ganizations

I came across that link this morning which pretty much answers every question about this "scandal."  I think these four basically sum up the whole thing.

10. Would organizations with Tea Party in the name have been centralized if only appropriate selection criteria had been used?

Yes, in most cases the organization would have been centralized based on the information included in the application. The IRS should have focused on this information instead of using a shortcut.

11. Were centralized cases worked differently depending on which selection criteria was used?

No, centralized cases were not worked differently depending on which selection criteria was used.

12. Did mistakes occur in working the centralized cases?

Yes. Applicants whose cases were centralized unfortunately experienced inappropriate delays and over-expansive information requests in some cases. This was caused by ineffective processes and not related to the selection criteria used for the centralization of a case.

13. Is there any evidence of political bias in selecting cases for centralization or in working those cases?

The TIGTA report included no findings of political bias. In addition, the IRS has found no indication of political bias.
 
2013-05-17 10:14:08 AM  

Dr Dreidel: If they say "Death to America" or make threats against our Proud Nubian leader, yes. Absolutely.


img684.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-17 10:15:30 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: If it was bad for Tricky Dick to do it it's bad for Fartbongo to do it.


Nixon actually ordered audits. In this case there is no proof that the President ordered the IRS to do anything and they were flagging certain words in the application process. Those groups had to fill out a questionnaire and none of them were denied. But yes it's exactly the same.
 
2013-05-17 10:17:07 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: If it was bad for Tricky Dick to do it it's bad for Fartbongo to do it.


The difference being:
a) Nixon had his "enemies" audited, while Obama did nothing at all.
b) The current IRS is guilty only of enforcing the law that politics groups are not eligible for 501(c)(4) non-profit status
 
2013-05-17 10:19:42 AM  

FlashHarry: Polly Ester: Of course he didn't.
It was two anonymous, low-level IRS employees who have been disciplined in an undisclosed fashion.
See?  All better!

you have evidence to the contrary? present it. i'm all ears.


Why would I even seek evidence to the contrary?  Or even evidence confirming it?  This administration has been so honest and forthcoming with all the other recent developments they've been conveniently ignorant of and uninvolved in; their word is golden!
I, for one, take them at their word and anyone who doesn't do the same is playing cheap political games at the expense of the greatest being to ever grace the highest office in the land.
 
2013-05-17 10:22:55 AM  

Polly Ester: Why would I even seek evidence to the contrary?  Or even evidence confirming it?  This administration has been so honest and forthcoming with all the other recent developments they've been conveniently ignorant of and uninvolved in; their word is golden!
I, for one, take them at their word and anyone who doesn't do the same is playing cheap political games at the expense of the greatest being to ever grace the highest office in the land.


so you've got nothing. got it.

thanks!
 
2013-05-17 10:23:03 AM  
Actually, I think one of the questioners just led into what this is going to mean for the rest of us...a bigger budget for the IRS so this type of thing doesn't happen anymore.

It's a set up.
 
2013-05-17 10:27:17 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Citrate1007: ExpressPork: Extra scrutiny for groups and individuals depending on their political views/speech?  No nothing at all to see here or be even slightly worried about.
Trust the government, citizen.

So we shouldn't monitor radical muslim groups or armed militia groups?

If they say "Death to America" or make threats against our Proud Nubian leader, yes. Absolutely.

If they haven't, leave them alone.

// why is this hard to understand?
// ExpressPork even said it - "BASED ON THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS/SPEECH"
// words mean things, and your freedom to use them doesn't absolve you of the legal consequences



Soooo, you think that a radical Muslim group working within the U.S. to cause some sort of catastrophe is going to walk around shouting "Death to America"?


/You watch too much TV
 
2013-05-17 10:32:28 AM  
Politico is shocked

www.toddbuchholz.com
 
2013-05-17 10:33:17 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Soooo, you think that a radical Muslim group working within the U.S. to cause some sort of catastrophe is going to walk around shouting "Death to America"?


No, I'm saying that if there is one stupid enough to do so, they should be investigated.

There are single idiots dumb enough to make death threats against other people (or the government) in public, why should groups of people, or single/groups of Muslims, be any different?

// you make too many assumptions
 
2013-05-17 10:42:09 AM  
Tiger Beat on the Potomac. F'kin Politico.
 
2013-05-17 10:43:22 AM  
Seems to me like the only scandal is that the IRS didn't scrutinize liberal political groups as much as they should have. If your group has "tea party" in the name it's a safe bet that it's a political group, not a charity.
 
2013-05-17 10:43:51 AM  
Only for Republicans is it a scandal that the IRS was doing its job, though perhaps slightly clumsily. Which is what happens when you hamstring an agency by continually cutting its funding.
 
2013-05-17 10:46:31 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Seems to me like the only scandal is that the IRS didn't scrutinize liberal political groups as much as they should have.


Funny thing about that, the only group that actually was denied WAS a liberal group. And another liberal group took 9 months to get approval.
 
Displayed 50 of 131 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report