• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups[W:484,732]

Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

sangha said:
WRT whether this indicates any wrongdoing on the part of the admin, yes it's politically meaningless
Click to expand...

Can you expound on the 'limits' of 'the admin'? Or is your argument that the IRS is not under the prevue of 'the admin'?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Dickieboy said:
Can you expound on the 'limits' of 'the admin'? Or is your argument that the IRS is not under the prevue of 'the admin'?
Click to expand...

I said nothing about any "limits" or "prevue" (and I think you mean "purview")
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

upsideguy said:
You are letting your imagination run wild. The IRS will not have access to your medical records. Their enforcement role in "Obamacare" has nothing to do with the medical side of things.
Click to expand...
94.jpg
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

upsideguy said:
I think the body of my original statement had most of it... but let's further elaborate:

The IRS was using intelligent discriminators to identify potential political groups applying for tax-exempt status under a category reserved for groups that were only secondarily political.

IRS targeted groups that criticized the government, IG report says

Yes, the IRS did get overly zealous in its scrutiny. However, unlike the suggestion of parts of the media that would have you believe that people were targeted, harassed, audited or otherwise denied their rights. None of this happened. In fact, no taxpayers were harmed in the making of this "scandal" No one was denied the tax exempt status sought.

The default position of a 501(c)(4) application is that you get the tax exempt status, you get to simply declare yourself a 501(c)(4) and act accordingly. You do not have to apply for the status. However, entities that exist on the bubble between those that educate about social welfare and those with a political agenda (like Tea Party entities) are advised to obtain the blessing of the IRS, lest they later be declared not a 501(c)(4). The IRS CAN take away the status, but it does not grant the status. Curiously, however, this entire controversy was born and lived during the tenure of Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee (who served until November 2012). He doesn't seem to be a likely guy to have a political agenda AGAINST conservative groups.

The reason there was no foul, is that no one lost their status as a result of this. They "crime" was they were asked a lot of questions. The link below is the actual "declaration" form.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the IRS used discriminators that singled out Tea Party groups, but they were the most prevalent and the most controversial (in terms of qualifying as a 501(c)(4) group) of the time. This is blown way out of proportion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew all this. Now what is the 'issue'?...'the IRS did get overly zealous in its scrutiny'.

Further 'Yes, the IRS used discriminators that singled out Tea Party groups, but they were the most prevalent and the most controversial...' The IG's sample was 244 of the ~2450 applications. Only 42 of the 244 were 'tea party groups'. What were the other 202? Since we don't know (and affirmed by the testimony of the IG today) how can you make the 'most prevalent and the most controversial' claim...now wondering how much you THINK you know about this especially considering you brought BUSH into the discussion. While logical that he would not have a political agenda it seems similarly logical that IF there were progressive/liberal leaning groups in the 202 they would have been identified and pronounced to promote a legitimate 'non-biased' application meme of the standards utilized. The mere absence of this defense doesn't mean it is not available but that it is just unknown. Frankly there may certainly not be anything to this but currently we know what we don't know AND we don't know what we don't know. Hence the continuance of the IG's INVESTIGATION (again as affirmed by the IG's testimony today). But to claim 'This is blown way out of proportion' at this point seems quite presumptuous.
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

upsideguy said:
I think the body of my original statement had most of it... but let's further elaborate:

The IRS was using intelligent discriminators to identify potential political groups applying for tax-exempt status under a category reserved for groups that were only secondarily political.

IRS targeted groups that criticized the government, IG report says

Yes, the IRS did get overly zealous in its scrutiny. However, unlike the suggestion of parts of the media that would have you believe that people were targeted, harassed, audited or otherwise denied their rights. None of this happened. In fact, no taxpayers were harmed in the making of this "scandal" No one was denied the tax exempt status sought.

The default position of a 501(c)(4) application is that you get the tax exempt status, you get to simply declare yourself a 501(c)(4) and act accordingly. You do not have to apply for the status. However, entities that exist on the bubble between those that educate about social welfare and those with a political agenda (like Tea Party entities) are advised to obtain the blessing of the IRS, lest they later be declared not a 501(c)(4). The IRS CAN take away the status, but it does not grant the status. Curiously, however, this entire controversy was born and lived during the tenure of Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee (who served until November 2012). He doesn't seem to be a likely guy to have a political agenda AGAINST conservative groups.

The reason there was no foul, is that no one lost their status as a result of this. They "crime" was they were asked a lot of questions. The link below is the actual "declaration" form.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/Form14449.pdf

501(c)4 vs 501(c)3 vs 527

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the IRS used discriminators that singled out Tea Party groups, but they were the most prevalent and the most controversial (in terms of qualifying as a 501(c)(4) group) of the time. This is blown way out of proportion.
Click to expand...


Strange that the IRS demanded the donor list of all an organization's contributors per the Wapo. Don't really see that in the guidelines.

BTW, Blown Way Out of Proportion is what happens when you piss of the press by spying on their reporters and then defending it with impunity as a matter of national security. Unless heads start rolling you can bet that the WH will suffer greatly in its ability to control any stories from this point forward.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

sangha said:
I said nothing about any "limits" or "prevue" (and I think you mean "purview")
Click to expand...

No it was my question to you as it seems you feel (as stated previously) that the IRS is somehow outside the 'limits' of the admin...

Actually I meant purvue, autocorrect changed but purview is acceptable...thx
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

nota bene said:
I hope every citizen is concerned because what's going on here is a wake-up call.
Click to expand...

a wake up call about what, exactly?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

justabubba said:
a wake up call about what, exactly?
Click to expand...

This is justabubba hitting snooze.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

jmotivator said:
This is justabubba hitting snooze.
Click to expand...

if it was a wake up call, then tell me what the call was about
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Guy Incognito said:
No, there was nothing even remotely criminal going on here. Just hard working, apolitical career-bureaucrats doing the best job they could with limited resources, only to be turned into a political football by conservative political opportunists.
Click to expand...

I am stunned by the ignorance of this. But I should have expected it. Silly me.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Woodman909 said:
I am stunned by the ignorance of this. But I should have expected it. Silly me.
Click to expand...

then share with us exactly what aspects of that post are other than accurate
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Woodman909 said:
I am stunned by the ignorance of this. But I should have expected it. Silly me.
Click to expand...

Right back at ya, pal:thumbs:
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Woodman909 said:
I am stunned by the ignorance of this. But I should have expected it. Silly me.
Click to expand...


It's not ignorance, it's spin. They know what happened and refuse to accept that it was wrong.

But I guess this just green lights the more conservative IRS agents to target and harass applications from liberal organizations....

The old rule will always apply: Don't defend a use of power that you would not trust in the hands of your opponent.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

justabubba said:
then share with us exactly what aspects of that post are other than accurate
Click to expand...

This may clear it up for you, and from the Washington Post no less....

"Essentially, there are three types of laws that might conceivably have been broken, as Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged in his testimony before a House committee Wednesday:

1) Civil rights laws that protect people from being discriminated against by the government

2) The Hatch Act, which prevents civil servants from engaging in partisan political activity

3) Perjury laws, which prevent people from lying to Congress

For the third law to have been broken, Republicans would have to prove that IRS officials knew of improper targeting of conservatives and testified to the opposite effect. They have noted that then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman testified in March 2012 that there was no such targeting going on."

‘Who’s going to jail’ over IRS scandal? Probably nobody.


Now I know that all you and Guy are doing here is trying to defend the act because you truly don't see anything wrong with what happened, (even though if tables were turned, you'd be screaming from the treetops) but, I can assure you the WH is taking a dangerous path here.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Guy Incognito said:
No, there was nothing even remotely criminal going on here...
Click to expand...

Apparently the IG disagrees with you on this per his testimony yesterday...refuting the testimony of Miller.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

j-mac said:
This may clear it up for you, and from the Washington Post no less....

"Essentially, there are three types of laws that might conceivably have been broken, as Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged in his testimony before a House committee Wednesday:

1) Civil rights laws that protect people from being discriminated against by the government

2) The Hatch Act, which prevents civil servants from engaging in partisan political activity

3) Perjury laws, which prevent people from lying to Congress

For the third law to have been broken, Republicans would have to prove that IRS officials knew of improper targeting of conservatives and testified to the opposite effect. They have noted that then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman testified in March 2012 that there was no such targeting going on."

‘Who’s going to jail’ over IRS scandal? Probably nobody.


Now I know that all you and Guy are doing here is trying to defend the act because you truly don't see anything wrong with what happened, (even though if tables were turned, you'd be screaming from the treetops) but, I can assure you the WH is taking a dangerous path here.
Click to expand...

here was the post you were referencing:
Guy Incognito said:
No, there was nothing even remotely criminal going on here. Just hard working, apolitical career-bureaucrats doing the best job they could with limited resources, only to be turned into a political football by conservative political opportunists.
Click to expand...

and what we find is that there is nothing found illegal
not that it isn't obvious you wish there was evidence of illegal activity
because if it was actually present you would be showing us evidence of it
instead, all you are able to present is a newspaper article outlining three POSSIBLE illegal scenarios, NONE of them actually found to be present
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

Dickieboy said:
Apparently the IG disagrees with you on this per his testimony yesterday...refuting the testimony of Miller.
Click to expand...

share with us what he said is found to have been illegal
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

justabubba said:
share with us what he said is found to have been illegal
Click to expand...

Ok, I will as soon as the transcript comes out else I fear this will devolve into a insincere repudiation based on lack of evidence...;)
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

From the report:

WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that
identified for review Tea Party and other
organizations applying for tax-exempt status
based upon their names or policy positions
instead of indications of potential political
campaign intervention. Ineffective management:
1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed
and stay in place for more than 18 months,
2) resulted in substantial delays in processing
certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary
information requests to be issued.
Although the processing of some applications
with potential significant political campaign

intervention was started soon after receipt, no
work was completed on the majority of these
applications for 13 months. This was due to
delays in receiving assistance from the Exempt
Organizations function Headquarters office.
For the 296 total political campaign intervention
applications TIGTA reviewed as of
December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved,
28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had
been denied, and 160 were open from 206 to
1,138 calendar days (some for more than
three years and crossing two election cycles).
More than 20 months after the initial case was
identified, processing the cases began in
earnest. Many organizations received requests
for additional information from the IRS that
included unnecessary, burdensome questions
(e.g., lists of past and future donors). The IRS
later informed some organizations that they did
not need to provide previously requested
information. IRS officials stated that any donor
information received in response to a request
from its Determinations Unit was later destroyed.
Click to expand...
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

American said:
From the report:
Click to expand...

ok
and what does that tell us?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

j-mac said:
What makes you think that these groups were as you put it, "...ridiculously likely to need investigation."? You refer to "keywords", well we have that list from the IRS that they were using....

"The report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration described in detail the use of “inappropriate criteria” to screen political advocacy groups. An IRS unit created a “lookout” list for organizations with keywords such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names."

IG report: ?Inappropriate criteria? stalled IRS approvals of conservative groups - Washington Post

"The Internal Revenue Service's scrutiny of conservative groups went beyond those with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names—as the agency admitted Friday—to also include ones worried about government spending, debt or taxes, and even ones that lobbied to "make America a better place to live," according to new details of a government probe."

Wider Problems Found at IRS - WSJ.com

What about those words, or phrases, other than pure ideology leads you to believe that they need extra scrutiny over say a group with "progress" in their name?
Click to expand...
According to the IG report, there were 96 groups with Tea Party, Patriot, or 9/12 in their names. 17 of these groups were investigated when they shouldn't have been. The rest should have been investigated. It appears that every single group with Tea Party, Patriot, or 9/12 were sent to the investigation.

That means that 82% of all groups with Tea Party, Patriot, or 9/12 in their title had signs of excessive political activity. In comparison, the IG report estimates that 6% of all groups that did not have Tea Party, Patriot, or 9/12 in their names should have been investigated.

82% Of these conservative groups needed to be investigated, compared to 6% of everyone else.

It's hard to argue that these conservative groups were targeted when they shouldn't have been. They were clearly pushing the limits of acceptable political activity. But you do have a point in that there was a better chance for the IRS to miss political activity in groups that did not have Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names.

You raise a question that needs to be investigated. Was there systematic bias as to which groups were approved and or investigated. Here's what we can say so far. I included the last article because it provides a handy text reference of all groups that were approved. I was even nice enough to go through 1018 names.

Here's a list of all of the organizations approved. SOI Tax Stats - Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF)
The IRS targeted tea party groups. Did liberal groups get better treatment? (contains a handy text list)
36 have Either Tea Party, 912, or Patriot in their title. 2 have the word conservative. I manually found 32 verifiable groups that were conservative.

7 have the words progress or progressive, none have the words liberal, or Democrat. And I found 11 groups that were verifiable progressive leaning.

I also found 8 groups that were political, but non-partisan.

That's 70 conservative groups approved, and 18 liberal or progressive leaning groups. This is kind of what we would expect, both sides are bending/breaking the rules, but it's an 80/20 conservative/liberal split.
​

Oh, and for the record, I put the data in a nice searchable form so I can quickly query the approved lists for any keywords we'd like.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Dickieboy said:
No it was my question to you as it seems you feel (as stated previously) that the IRS is somehow outside the 'limits' of the admin...

Actually I meant purvue, autocorrect changed but purview is acceptable...thx
Click to expand...

In that case, I have already answered that question, and I did not say what you think I said, just as Carney did not say what you think he said
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

sangha said:
In that case, I have already answered that question, and I did not say what you think I said, just as Carney did not say what you think he said
Click to expand...

At this point I will refrain from furthering your application of 'Durch sinnlosen Wortschwall verdutzen'. Carry on...;)
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Dickieboy said:
At this point I will refrain from furthering your application of 'Durch sinnlosen Wortschwall verdutzen'. Carry on...;)
Click to expand...

then it appears sangha won yet another one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom