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)   Then suddenly, the press decided to actually look in to the tea party groups looking to fund themselves with our tax money   (politico.com) divider line 250
    More: Obvious, GOP, IRS, tax-exempt status, House Ways and Means Committee  
•       •       •

6271 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jun 2013 at 7:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-05 05:44:36 PM
I was wondering when this would happen.  Not that it makes the IRS look better, but the real scandal is that these groups are getting their exemptions.
 
2013-06-05 05:52:41 PM
Social welfare organization:

upload.wikimedia.org


NOT a social welfare organization:


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-05 05:54:33 PM

vernonFL: Social welfare organization:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 280x264]


NOT a social welfare organization:


[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 263x191]


why not, they both seem to deal with ovens.
 
2013-06-05 05:55:24 PM

vernonFL: Social welfare organization:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 280x264]


That's not a social welfare organization. That's a business. In fact, it's the business that the Seinfeld episode with the Soup Nazi is based on.
 
2013-06-05 06:11:11 PM
The group leaders attended rallies to stop Obama administration priorities and ripped into the president's work on health care and missile defense.

Wait, what? I thought the right loved expensive Pentagon boondoggles?  Or were they mad he wasn't missile defending hard enough?
 
2013-06-05 06:16:51 PM
Agency regulation prohibits nonprofits from primarily engaging in political activity but offers no public guidance to judge what unacceptable behavior means.


So maybe Congress should investigate congress' inability to provide guidelines.
 
2013-06-05 06:20:28 PM
This article does in fact make a solid case for the blindingly obvious: these groups are entirely political in concept, intent, and practice.

However, it also makes a solid case for something else as well: they are able to exist only because IRS and the government have never bothered to clearly define such crucial terms as 'political' and 'social welfare'. In my book, it's not these groups' fault that they haven't been given a very good line to toe.

Until and unless those terms are clearly defined and the rules are made more ironclad, they are entirely in the right, even of they ARE grasping lying worthless sacks of right wing shill.
 
2013-06-05 06:25:03 PM
Sue Martinek, president of the Coalition for Life of Iowa, complained during yesterday's hearing that the IRS wanted a guarantee that her group would not "bother" Planned Parenthood. According to the group's website, it holds twice-a-week prayer sessions outside the women's clinic in Cedar Rapids. It also participates monthly in meetings of the Iowa PAC for Life and annually in the Protest the Pill day against birth control.

In an interview with POLITICO after the hearing, Martinek said her group did not meet with PACs and engaged in no political activity.

"We have done no political activity," she said. "We did not meet with PACs."


Hahahaha. Oh wow.
 
2013-06-05 06:27:43 PM

spongeboob: Agency regulation prohibits nonprofits from primarily engaging in political activity but offers no public guidance to judge what unacceptable behavior means.

So maybe Congress should investigate congress' inability to provide guidelines.


Yea, it seems like there were giant loopholes partially created by Congress, these groups were trying to exploit them, the IRS was like, "wait, this is bullshiat", and now everyone is on their fainting couch. Some clearer standards would be nice. I mean, seriously:

In an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, Belsom downplayed the amount of political activity her group is engaged in. She said politics doesn't make up the majority of her work and said she doesn't believe her efforts on the health care law should be considered political activity because it doesn't directly involve elections.

"It comes down to what is the definition of political," she said in the interview. "Unless I'm misunderstanding, political is defined by the IRS as trying to get candidates elected."


That's why lobbyists have no work to do between elections...
 
2013-06-05 06:29:03 PM

whistleridge: This article does in fact make a solid case for the blindingly obvious: these groups are entirely political in concept, intent, and practice.


Highlighted for truth. I disagree with your second statement though. I think no matter what dictionary you use, the word entirely more than meets the criteria in the rule's wording of primarily.
 
2013-06-05 06:30:15 PM

RexTalionis: vernonFL: Social welfare organization:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 280x264]

That's not a social welfare organization. That's a business. In fact, it's the business that the Seinfeld episode with the Soup Nazi is based on.


I noticed that, but I got his point.

Social welfare organization:

i.huffpost.com

NOT a social welfare organization:

www.buzztwang.com
 
2013-06-05 06:31:56 PM
I will say this is bullshiat:

described more than two years of back-and-forth with the IRS as she sought 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.

while waiting 29 months for his request for 501(c)(3) status to be approved.

she didn't hear from the IRS for 459 days after getting an Weeners to her October 2010 application for 501(c)(4) status.

complained of waiting more than 16 months for the IRS to process her 501(c)(4) application


Either shiat or get off the pot. Don't leave them waiting in limbo that long. What was happening to their applications in the meantime?
 
2013-06-05 06:32:44 PM

ManateeGag: vernonFL: Social welfare organization:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 280x264]


NOT a social welfare organization:


[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 263x191]

why not, they both seem to deal with ovens.


You know who else dealt with ovens?
 
2013-06-05 06:34:30 PM

Car_Ramrod: I will say this is bullshiat:

described more than two years of back-and-forth with the IRS as she sought 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.

while waiting 29 months for his request for 501(c)(3) status to be approved.

she didn't hear from the IRS for 459 days after getting an Weeners to her October 2010 application for 501(c)(4) status.

complained of waiting more than 16 months for the IRS to process her 501(c)(4) application

Either shiat or get off the pot. Don't leave them waiting in limbo that long. What was happening to their applications in the meantime?


The filter makes this better.
 
2013-06-05 06:52:31 PM
Outrage seems to hold a slight lead over Butthurt at the turn, and here comes Divide and Conquer, pulling away from Wagging Tail Dog  as we enter the stretch,,,
 
2013-06-05 06:56:58 PM
These idiots don't even realize they're chasing their own tail thinking it's Obama.
 
2013-06-05 07:28:54 PM

Mentat: These idiots don't even realize they're chasing their own tail thinking it's Obama.


thethesiswhisperer.files.wordpress.com
Underestimate the power of the derp you should not.
 
2013-06-05 07:37:55 PM
Hey, if a radio station sales manager getting a new BMW because a "social welfare" teatard group fleeced rubes and used the money to advertise on Rush Limbaugh -- totally wasting the money preaching to the choir -- urging a vote ag'in the socialistic muslinicity of Obama isn't a public service worthy of tax-free operation then I'm not a BMW salesman who conned the daft prick into double undercoating and an extended warranty!
 
2013-06-05 07:46:18 PM
Um the IG report actually says this.
 
2013-06-05 07:53:22 PM
funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear to "these groups had it coming" after they've been implicated in the wrongdoing
 
2013-06-05 07:54:50 PM
Again, the IRS investigating tax dodgers like the Tea Pary is not a "scandal," and I would wager that most of us who voted Obama (twice now) have no problem with making the lives of those stupid selfish farks a living Hell.
 
2013-06-05 07:55:22 PM

the_dude_abides: funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear to "these groups had it coming" after they've been implicated in the wrongdoing


Astute
 
2013-06-05 07:59:07 PM

the_dude_abides: funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear


When who was in the clear?
 
2013-06-05 08:01:19 PM
some 501(c)(4) groups aren't  so-called social welfare organizations but are money laundering operations for big money donations
 
2013-06-05 08:01:27 PM

Car_Ramrod: I will say this is bullshiat:

described more than two years of back-and-forth with the IRS as she sought 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.

while waiting 29 months for his request for 501(c)(3) status to be approved.

she didn't hear from the IRS for 459 days after getting an Weeners to her October 2010 application for 501(c)(4) status.

complained of waiting more than 16 months for the IRS to process her 501(c)(4) application

Either shiat or get off the pot. Don't leave them waiting in limbo that long. What was happening to their applications in the meantime?


But it's FUN to make these bunch of anti-government nutbars twist in the wind!
 
2013-06-05 08:01:29 PM
www.minnpost.com


See? He checked Pissed Off, not Dem or Repub.  He's legit
 
2013-06-05 08:01:53 PM

the_dude_abides: funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear to "these groups had it coming" after they've been implicated in the wrongdoing


5/10. Shoulda said "Libs" instead of democrats. A mention of the "democrat party" would have helped though.
 
2013-06-05 08:03:54 PM

the_dude_abides: funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear to "these groups had it coming" after they've been implicated in the wrongdoing


i580.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-05 08:07:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: the_dude_abides: funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear

When who was in the clear?


media1.policymic.com

GIS for 'in the clear'.  Must be an anti-immigration dog whistle.
 
2013-06-05 08:12:33 PM
If these groups say that politics is not their primary activity then why can't any of them - ANY OF THEM - give an example of one single solitary thing they're involved in that ISN'T political?
 
2013-06-05 08:13:16 PM

whidbey: Again, the IRS investigating tax dodgers like the Tea Pary is not a "scandal," and I would wager that most of us who voted Obama (twice now) have no problem with making the lives of those stupid selfish farks a living Hell.


good thing you're not in charge
 
2013-06-05 08:13:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius: ManateeGag: vernonFL: Social welfare organization:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 280x264]


NOT a social welfare organization:


[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 263x191]

why not, they both seem to deal with ovens.

You know who else dealt with ovens?


This was pre-Godwinned, sorry.

/Unless that's the joke.
 
2013-06-05 08:14:37 PM

Bucky Katt: some 501(c)(4) groups aren't  so-called social welfare organizations but are money laundering operations for big money donations


Step 1) Set up a non-profit, collect money from rubes
Step 2) Use that money to buy shiat-tons of copies of the book you just wrote, that no one would buy otherwise, and that is so crappy it can't even be used for toilet paper.
Step 3) Profit!
 
2013-06-05 08:22:02 PM

Karac: If these groups say that politics is not their primary activity then why can't any of them - ANY OF THEM - give an example of one single solitary thing they're involved in that ISN'T political?


As I quoted upthread:

In an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, Belsom downplayed the amount of political activity her group is engaged in. She said politics doesn't make up the majority of her work and said she doesn't believe her efforts on the health care law should be considered political activity because it doesn't directly involve elections.

So it's not political, it's "political".

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-05 08:24:24 PM

the_dude_abides: funny how democrats' story has changed from "this is an outrage" when they were in the clear to "these groups had it coming" after they've been implicated in the wrongdoing


I'm still at 'Probably should not have done that, but it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of morons'.

So is the House going to introduce some legislation to clarify the regulations, or are they going to be too busy being the victim? That was the ACTUAL headline on Fox yesterday: The victims speak out.

Know what else? They buried the sex assault hearing on digital page 5.
 
2013-06-05 08:24:36 PM

Car_Ramrod: Karac: If these groups say that politics is not their primary activity then why can't any of them - ANY OF THEM - give an example of one single solitary thing they're involved in that ISN'T political?

As I quoted upthread:

In an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, Belsom downplayed the amount of political activity her group is engaged in. She said politics doesn't make up the majority of her work and said she doesn't believe her efforts on the health care law should be considered political activity because it doesn't directly involve elections.

So it's not political, it's "political".

[25.media.tumblr.com image 486x342]


And as I meant to add, but hit submit too early (cause really, who's never done that before):
one single, solitary example of something they've done that ISN'T political that can pass a laugh test and doesn't make everyone within twenty feet of them dive for cover against the inevitable smiting from On High.
 
2013-06-05 08:25:22 PM
No shiat?  Huh.
 
2013-06-05 08:26:36 PM
Our objective is anti democrat and to get conservatives to vote and not saying who to vote for and we fund pro republican initiatives but thats not political.... Is that what I'm reading? Do they just make up definitions?
 
2013-06-05 08:32:51 PM

Virulency: Our objective is anti democrat and to get conservatives to vote and not saying who to vote for and we fund pro republican initiatives but thats not political.... Is that what I'm reading? Do they just make up definitions?


The IRS won't so i guess somebody has to.
 
2013-06-05 08:33:33 PM
I wonder whatinthehell tea partiers think WOULD be political activity?
 
2013-06-05 08:34:41 PM

edmo: I wonder whatinthehell tea partiers think WOULD be political activity?


Literally anything a Democrat does.
 
2013-06-05 08:35:58 PM

edmo: I wonder whatinthehell tea partiers think WOULD be political activity?


anything that ACORN does.
 
2013-06-05 08:37:38 PM

Karac: Car_Ramrod: Karac: If these groups say that politics is not their primary activity then why can't any of them - ANY OF THEM - give an example of one single solitary thing they're involved in that ISN'T political?

As I quoted upthread:

In an interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, Belsom downplayed the amount of political activity her group is engaged in. She said politics doesn't make up the majority of her work and said she doesn't believe her efforts on the health care law should be considered political activity because it doesn't directly involve elections.

So it's not political, it's "political".

[25.media.tumblr.com image 486x342]

And as I meant to add, but hit submit too early (cause really, who's never done that before):
one single, solitary example of something they've done that ISN'T political that can pass a laugh test and doesn't make everyone within twenty feet of them dive for cover against the inevitable smiting from On High.


Oh. Then no.
 
2013-06-05 08:38:54 PM

Virulency: Our objective is anti democrat and to get conservatives to vote and not saying who to vote for and we fund pro republican initiatives but thats not political.... Is that what I'm reading? Do they just make up definitions?


Yes.
 
2013-06-05 08:40:53 PM
FTA  Their activities might not have run afoul of the rules. But for the murky world of charitable exemptions now under heightened political scrutiny, their backgrounds underscore the gray area the IRS was in as it posed questions to the groups.

Either they were against the rules or they weren't. I figured they were against the rules. Maybe I was wrong.
Of course, congress wrote poor rules but they are already the one group people like less and trust less than the IRS.
 
2013-06-05 08:42:45 PM
I've said from the start, the IRS did nothing wrong. You have a farking movement of people who rail against taxes, threaten not to pay taxes, preach about finding ways to avoid taxes legally...why the hell WOULDN'T/SHOULDN'T the IRS use names that seem to affiliate with said movement as red flags for further investigation?

If a bunch of idiots called their book club "The Al-Qaeda Literary Brigade" would the FBI be wrong for at least putting their organization ahead of the local Girl Scouts chapter in terms of priority for added attention?

The only mistake the IRS made was not coming out and saying "yeah we did it and we'll keep doing it and f*ck you if you don't like it".
 
2013-06-05 08:43:20 PM

MFAWG: So is the House going to introduce some legislation to clarify the regulations, or are they going to be too busy being the victim? That was the ACTUAL headline on Fox yesterday: The victims speak out.


you are aware that members of the conservative groups being targeted by the irs testified yesterday, right? and that those are not the same as the members of the house?
 
2013-06-05 08:43:50 PM
It's like how derpy Christians will tell you that it's ok to force Christian traditions on people because it's not a religion, it's a way of life!

I think they've seriously convinced themselves that being in the Tea Party has nothing to do with politics. Same goes for their hatred of Obama. It's not about politics! It's about freedom!
 
2013-06-05 08:49:38 PM
sorry gentlemen, can't break the rules just because you think the ends justify the means
 
2013-06-05 08:50:18 PM

the_dude_abides: MFAWG: So is the House going to introduce some legislation to clarify the regulations, or are they going to be too busy being the victim? That was the ACTUAL headline on Fox yesterday: The victims speak out.

you are aware that members of the conservative groups being targeted by the irs testified yesterday, right? and that those are not the same as the members of the house?


That's the whole point. Congressional Republicans are outraged and claiming to be victims too, because Tea Party, but wait, that would make it political, thus nullifying...
The derp is giving me a headache
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report