• 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

Irrelevant facts are irrelevant.

There is no evidence that he allowed it
You didn't watch the video like I did... I can tell.

I see you are to be taken as someone with no merit here.

Thanks for that lesson.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

You didn't watch the video like I did... I can tell.

I see you are to be taken as someone with no merit here.

Thanks for that lesson.

IOW, you've got nothing.

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

the folks who were clearly unprepared were the republican questioners
here is an example...

Hmmm....Do you believe it is a game to lie to, or mislead congress?

IRS has rigid rules about any IRS employee disclosing individual/entity information supplied to the IRS
yet time and again the republican committee members would ask miller about specific case scenarios
agency regulations - as he repeatedly shared with them - would not permit him to respond to those case specific questions
and the republicans would continue to ask case specific information
as i would hear them repeatedly make this same mistake i would wonder, who the hell elected these idiots

Bubba, you can not be this obtuse. Do you know what oversight is? Do you think that this administration is above that or something? I don't get it.

Look, BOTH libs, and cons should be outraged by this, Obama has at least expressed faux outrage, the least you could do is that, unless your tactic here is not to effectively debate the issue, but rather join the ranks of the bomb throwers in the boards and just be inflammatory in responding.

Come on man, you used to post much more thought out than this....You can do it....:peace:
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups in 201

I give you Charles Rangel (D) NY.

No thanks, you can keep him. :)
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Hmmm....Do you believe it is a game to lie to, or mislead congress?
first we would need to see that anyone had lied or misled congress
show us any instance where this was the circumstance during the ways and means hearing of the IRS exempt determination unit activities and we can then pursue your proposition that lying and/or misleading congress should be found unacceptable

now, here is my challenge to you. please do not run away from it

identify who lied and post their lies - so that we can discuss your point
but because you will be unable to do that, there will be nothing to discuss


Bubba, you can not be this obtuse. Do you know what oversight is? Do you think that this administration is above that or something? I don't get it.
here is the portion of my post you objected to:
IRS has rigid rules about any IRS employee disclosing individual/entity information supplied to the IRS
yet time and again the republican committee members would ask miller about specific case scenarios
agency regulations - as he repeatedly shared with them - would not permit him to respond to those case specific questions
and the republicans would continue to ask case specific information
as i would hear them repeatedly make this same mistake i would wonder, who the hell elected these idiots
you are right - you DON'T get it
whether that is because you choose not to or are incapable of understanding it, only you know the answer
an employee of the IRS CANNOT discuss individual case matters without being in violation with IRS regulations
that is true whether the employee is discussing the matter with congress or their next door neighbor
now, the congress COULD compel him to testify with the promise of immunity - or limited immunity - extending only to the IRS prohibition about information disclosure outside the agency
but the congress did not choose that option
if the information they were seeking from miller was essential to the congress' process, they could have issued the (limited) immunity. and did not

a CIA/DIA/NSA agent could not publicly disclose to the congress classified information without being in violation of government regulations. hopefully, you understand that reality. well, it works the same way for the IRS and its access to information submitted by taxpayers to that agency
i do not know how to make a simple concept any simpler so that you can 'get it'


Look, BOTH libs, and cons should be outraged by this, Obama has at least expressed faux outrage, the least you could do is that, unless your tactic here is not to effectively debate the issue, but rather join the ranks of the bomb throwers in the boards and just be inflammatory in responding.

Come on man, you used to post much more thought out than this....You can do it....:peace:
what your post conveys is your inability to undermine any of the arguments i have presented
there is no reason for outrage by you, your ilk, or progressives, or Obama
all that happened was the IRS determination unit placed for deeper review those applications where there was an indication the applicant organization MIGHT engage in political campaign activities to a degree which would exclude it from tax exemption. determining that was their job. the staff handled it as they did because of loosely worded regulations and no specification how to address processing those applications under that vague criteria
if you are outraged at that, then you may want to check your blood pressure
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

I love how progressives are content with an apology - as if this case was on par with a democrat politician getting caught with a hooker or something or a democrat politician using public funds for personal use, caught posting pictures or their dong online or caught smoking crack.....

"Oh, I'm sorry that you found out our government is Orwellian in nature - move along - its not that big of a deal."

I suppose this is what progressives get when they vote for big government..... The best part is - is watching progressives defend the monster entity.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

first we would need to see that anyone had lied or misled congress
show us any instance where this was the circumstance during the ways and means hearing of the IRS exempt determination unit activities and we can then pursue your proposition that lying and/or misleading congress should be found unacceptable

now, here is my challenge to you. please do not run away from it

identify who lied and post their lies - so that we can discuss your point
but because you will be unable to do that, there will be nothing to discuss

There was more than one person lying....

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) said the former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) commissioner appointed by President George W. Bush lied to Congress under oath when he told lawmakers last year that the agency did not give special attention to certain groups.


Following the House’s opening investigative hearing into the IRS's revelation that it gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, Crowley was asked if he believed Douglas Shulman lied to Congress.
“I think Mr. Shulman did,” said Crowley in an interview with Fox News.
“My understanding is that it was common knowledge if they were going after political groups back then.”
Crowley was referencing a 2012 House Ways and Means Committee hearing in which Shulman, in response to questions from Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), held that the IRS was not targeting specific groups applying for tax-exempt status.
"There's absolutely no targeting,” said Shulman at the time.
The encounter raised suspicions for Boustany as well, who recounted the incident during the same interview with Crowley.
“He said, absolutely not. He categorically denied it,” recalled Boustany on Friday. “But he was aware of what was going on during this time frame because we know that [a] senior technical advisor had already been sent out to Cincinnati to investigate what was going on and to report back.”
Shulman completed his five-year term as IRS chief in November of last year. He was replaced by Steven Miller, whom President Obama asked to resign this week after the IRS scandal erupted.


Read more: Dem: Ex-IRS chief lied to Congress - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

That's a democrat congressman saying so.

Miller came under aggressive and accusatory questioning from Camp and other Republicans, who claimed he misled Congress by failing to reveal the extent of the problem at previous hearings dating back a year.
"When asked the truth and you know the truth and you have a legal responsibility to inform others of the truth but you don't share that truth, what is that called?" Camp asked.
"I always answer questions truthfully, Mr. Camp," Miller replied.
A tense exchange with Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican, involved Miller's denial that what he called the "listing" of names or phrases that triggered extra scrutiny of exemption requests amounted to political "targeting," the word used in the inspector general's report.
Miller acknowledged that the list of triggering phrases was conservative-based, causing Black to cut him off by declaring: "Then I would say its targeted. You can't have that both ways."
GOP Rep. Devin Nunes of California later asked why Miller resigned if he wasn't personally involved in the improper acts. Miller replied: "I resigned because as the acting commissioner, what happens in the IRS, whether I was personally involved or not, stopped at my desk."
"And so, I should be held accountable for what happens," he said. "Whether I was personally involved or not, a very different question, sir."
Another Republican, Rep. Tom Reed of New York, took exception with Miller's characterization of his resignation, noting it meant he would retire with full benefits and "nothing bad is going to happen to you."
With an incredulous grin, Miller responded: "Nothing bad is happening to me, congressman?"
Reed remained stern-faced, noting Miller continued to get his taxpayer-funded salary.
"You're getting paid for being here today, right?" Reed asked, to which Miller, his smile gone, dryly replied: "Right."
After the hearing, Camp described a "disturbing lack of detail and information" during testimony.

IRS official denies intentional political targeting, lying to Congress - CNN.com

Now come on Bubba, this crap just doesn't pass the smell test....

here is the portion of my post you objected to:

you are right - you DON'T get it
whether that is because you choose not to or are incapable of understanding it, only you know the answer
an employee of the IRS CANNOT discuss individual case matters without being in violation with IRS regulations
that is true whether the employee is discussing the matter with congress or their next door neighbor
now, the congress COULD compel him to testify with the promise of immunity - or limited immunity - extending only to the IRS prohibition about information disclosure outside the agency
but the congress did not choose that option
if the information they were seeking from miller was essential to the congress' process, they could have issued the (limited) immunity. and did not

a CIA/DIA/NSA agent could not publicly disclose to the congress classified information without being in violation of government regulations. hopefully, you understand that reality. well, it works the same way for the IRS and its access to information submitted by taxpayers to that agency
i do not know how to make a simple concept any simpler so that you can 'get it'

Yeah? Well then who leaked to Pro Publica?

The division of the Internal Revenue Service that improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative groups sent confidential information on 31 conservative groups to the well-funded liberal nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica, according to a revelation made by ProPublica Monday.

“The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year,” according to the ProPublica report.



Read more: IRS sent confidential info to liberal nonprofit ProPublica | The Daily Caller

So it's ok to leak private info to news outlets supported by the Sandler's and George Soros, but just can't talk to the congressional committee that oversees their activity? :roll:

“Do you know if the IRS leaked tax information related to Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential primary general campaign?” Idaho Rep. Raúl Labrador asked Holder when he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee this week.

When Holder responded that he didn’t know, the website Talking Points Memo reported, Labrador asked him to investigate the topic. But the attorney general replied that he isn’t sure if he has a “predicate for it.”



Read more: Lawmaker: Holder must probe leak of Romney tax returns | The Daily Caller

So, the IRS also leaked information of a presidential candidate to yet another outlet, TPM, but you don't think that the head of the IRS can talk to the oversight committee, and Holder doesn't think he can investigate....shocking! :shock:

what your post conveys is your inability to undermine any of the arguments i have presented
there is no reason for outrage by you, your ilk, or progressives, or Obama
all that happened was the IRS determination unit placed for deeper review those applications where there was an indication the applicant organization MIGHT engage in political campaign activities to a degree which would exclude it from tax exemption. determining that was their job. the staff handled it as they did because of loosely worded regulations and no specification how to address processing those applications under that vague criteria
if you are outraged at that, then you may want to check your blood pressure

Really? I don't recall seeing Media Matters for America on that list, or Think Progress, or even Obama's brother starting up the same thing under Barrack's name....In fact they fast tracked their approval....

Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama’s organization.



Read more: Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller

Not only did he get special treatment, but unheard of retroactive coverage....

But please by all means Bubba, continue to tell us all that the sky is red, not blue....:roll:
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

you are right - you DON'T get it
whether that is because you choose not to or are incapable of understanding it, only you know the answer
an employee of the IRS CANNOT discuss individual case matters without being in violation with IRS regulations
that is true whether the employee is discussing the matter with congress or their next door neighbor
now, the congress COULD compel him to testify with the promise of immunity - or limited immunity - extending only to the IRS prohibition about information disclosure outside the agency
but the congress did not choose that option
if the information they were seeking from miller was essential to the congress' process, they could have issued the (limited) immunity. and did not

a CIA/DIA/NSA agent could not publicly disclose to the congress classified information without being in violation of government regulations. hopefully, you understand that reality. well, it works the same way for the IRS and its access to information submitted by taxpayers to that agency
i do not know how to make a simple concept any simpler so that you can 'get it'



what your post conveys is your inability to undermine any of the arguments i have presented
there is no reason for outrage by you, your ilk, or progressives, or Obama
all that happened was the IRS determination unit placed for deeper review those applications where there was an indication the applicant organization MIGHT engage in political campaign activities to a degree which would exclude it from tax exemption. determining that was their job. the staff handled it as they did because of loosely worded regulations and no specification how to address processing those applications under that vague criteria
if you are outraged at that, then you may want to check your blood pressure

True Scandal | National Review Online

OSHA, ATF, IRS--multiple inspections and audits AFTER 2010 when she involved herself in politics.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

True Scandal | National Review Online

OSHA, ATF, IRS--multiple inspections and audits AFTER 2010 when she involved herself in politics.
According to the report 91 of 298 applications were subjected to unnecessary scrutiny by the special committee. Of those 91, 17 were tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related. There were a total of 96 tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related groups.

This means that 18% of all tea party, patriots, or 9/12 groups that were investigated were investigated unfairly. In comparison, 37% of the other groups that were investigated, shouldn't have been.

Although they were targeted, Tea Party groups were unfairly investigated at HALF the rate of other 501(c)(4)s.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

According to the report 91 of 298 applications were subjected to unnecessary scrutiny by the special committee. Of those 91, 17 were tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related. There were a total of 96 tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related groups.

This means that 18% of all tea party, patriots, or 9/12 groups that were investigated were investigated unfairly. In comparison, 37% of the other groups that were investigated, shouldn't have been.

Although they were targeted, Tea Party groups were unfairly investigated at HALF the rate of other 501(c)(4)s.

Where are you getting your figures from? And what amount of discrimination is ok with you?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

According to the report 91 of 298 applications were subjected to unnecessary scrutiny by the special committee. Of those 91, 17 were tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related. There were a total of 96 tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related groups.

This means that 18% of all tea party, patriots, or 9/12 groups that were investigated were investigated unfairly. In comparison, 37% of the other groups that were investigated, shouldn't have been.

Although they were targeted, Tea Party groups were unfairly investigated at HALF the rate of other 501(c)(4)s.

Its not just the percentages, its what was asked and a possibility of collusion from other agencies.

Facebook pages, attendee roll calls, meeting minutes...and donation lists would seem ok, except its not for public consumption and its already been leaked.

Which doesnt explain away other agencies investigating this family after the mother got involved in political action.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Its not just the percentages, its what was asked and a possibility of collusion from other agencies.

Facebook pages, attendee roll calls, meeting minutes...and donation lists would seem ok, except its not for public consumption and its already been leaked.

Which doesnt explain away other agencies investigating this family after the mother got involved in political action.

I agree with all, except for donation lists....That would seem to be an absolute tool of corruption...
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

According to the report 91 of 298 applications were subjected to unnecessary scrutiny by the special committee. Of those 91, 17 were tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related. There were a total of 96 tea party, patriots, or 9/12 related groups.

This means that 18% of all tea party, patriots, or 9/12 groups that were investigated were investigated unfairly. In comparison, 37% of the other groups that were investigated, shouldn't have been.

Although they were targeted, Tea Party groups were unfairly investigated at HALF the rate of other 501(c)(4)s.



So airports targeting passengers with the name "Mohammad" is OK so long as only 18% of Muslim passengers have name "Mohammad"?
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Its not just the percentages, its what was asked and a possibility of collusion from other agencies.

Facebook pages, attendee roll calls, meeting minutes...and donation lists would seem ok, except its not for public consumption and its already been leaked.

Which doesnt explain away other agencies investigating this family after the mother got involved in political action.

You certainly have a point here.

Conservative groups made up 13 of 27 groups that received invasive or excessive questions. That means that 14 of 206 non conservative groups were also subjected to unnecessary questions. Using that as a baseline, you'd expect 7 conservative groups to receive these questions.

There were 6 conservative groups that had to fill out invasive questions above what we would statistically have expected.

Conservative groups were profiled. This is completely unacceptable. However the groups that were targeted were also extremely likely to abuse the tax code. The net result is that even with targeting, conservative groups were falsely investigated at half the rate of other groups. However, of those that were investigated, tea party groups were twice as likely to be subjected to invasive questions. Granted, we're only talking about 6 conservative groups, but that's still too many.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

So airports targeting passengers with the name "Mohammad" is OK so long as only 18% of Muslim passengers have name "Mohammad"?

Absolutely not. Profiling is wrong because in the US we don't think that anyone deserves extra scrutiny just because they happen to be of a particular skin color, practice a certain religion, or have a certain set of political views.

If profiling was okay, the only scandal would be that too few Conservative groups were falsely targeted. Conservative groups were falsely targeted at half the rate of other groups. Even if they were targeted at a higher rate than other groups, they violated the law at an even higher rate than they were targeted.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

So airports targeting passengers with the name "Mohammad" is OK so long as only 18% of Muslim passengers have name "Mohammad"?
yes, even tho 'bin laden' is going to have a miniscule representation on the flight manifests i would encourage those names to be over-represented for pre-flight evaluation
by your post, that would present a problem for you
please tell us why
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Where are you getting your figures from? And what amount of discrimination is ok with you?

The IG report:
Page 8, Figure 4: Breakdown of Potential Political Cases by Organization Name
Page 10, Lines 9-10, including footnote 28.

Error is not discrimination. The IRS did the right thing 94% of the time, 4% of the time they didn't investigate enough, and 2% of the time they investigated too much. They should do better, but it's an understandable error rate for an understaffed, underpaid, and overworked department. Discriminatation is when error is concentrated among a certain class of groups. If tea party groups made up 60 of the 91 groups investigated unfairly, then there would be a clear case of discrimination. However, that's not the case.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Absolutely not. Profiling is wrong because in the US we don't think that anyone deserves extra scrutiny just because they happen to be of a particular skin color, practice a certain religion, or have a certain set of political views.

If profiling was okay, the only scandal would be that too few Conservative groups were falsely targeted. Conservative groups were falsely targeted at half the rate of other groups. Even if they were targeted at a higher rate than other groups, they violated the law at an even higher rate than they were targeted.


The IRS was profiling applicants. Welcome to reality.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

You certainly have a point here.

Conservative groups made up 13 of 27 groups that received invasive or excessive questions. That means that 14 of 206 non conservative groups were also subjected to unnecessary questions. Using that as a baseline, you'd expect 7 conservative groups to receive these questions.

There were 6 conservative groups that had to fill out invasive questions above what we would statistically have expected.

Conservative groups were profiled. This is completely unacceptable. However the groups that were targeted were also extremely likely to abuse the tax code. The net result is that even with targeting, conservative groups were falsely investigated at half the rate of other groups. However, of those that were investigated, tea party groups were twice as likely to be subjected to invasive questions. Granted, we're only talking about 6 conservative groups, but that's still too many.

Yeahhh...I think you seriously need to sourc e your information about percentages, especially in light of the fact you are basing your entire argument on that.

We dont know concretely the numbers you are referring to, as far as I know. The more information that comes out the more we find out this was the norm. So I doubt the info you are using for numbers will remain accurate even if it is now.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Hey everybody, wake up! This is no big deal!

The IRS was violating the law, sure. But this is selective outrage. They were not trying to harass conservatives for being conservative they were harassing conservatives for being tax cheats. That is their job. Frankly I am surprised the IRS didn't stick to their guns on this one. This is the kind of thing that they would have taken to the supreme court if it had been Wiccans instead of the Tea Party.

Think about it. The IRS gets a flood of dubious tax exemption applications and other when shennanigans, all from tea party groups, all at once. Why wouldn't they give that group extra scrutiny? Their job is to make sure people don't evade taxes!

So sure, this type profiling is probably unlawful policy. But the selective outrage is painfully transparent coming from people who couldn't give two hoots when the profiling is against any other group.
 
Last edited:
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Hey everybody, wake up! This is no big deal!

The IRS was violating the law, sure. But this is selective outrage. They were not trying to harass conservatives for being conservative they were harassing conservatives for being tax cheats. That is their job. Frankly I am surprised the IRS didn't stick to their guns on this one. This is the kind of thing that they would have taken to the supreme court if it had been Wiccans instead of the Tea Party.

Think about it. The IRS gets a flood of dubious tax exemption applications and other when shennanigans, all from tea party groups, all at once. Why wouldn't they give that group extra scrutiny? Their job is to make sure people don't evade taxes!

So sure, this type profiling is probably unlawful policy. But the selective outrage is painfully transparent coming from people who couldn't give two hoots when the profiling is against any other group.

Bull****.

IRS's Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC | The Weekly Standard

The Christian Coalition was ultimately absolved of any FEC wrongdoing in 1999, and Lerner was promoted to acting General Counsel at the FEC in 2001 before eventually moving on to the IRS. Bopp, who's all too familiar with the aggressive and inappropriate tenor she set leading the FEC's Enforcement Division, says he became concerned about what would happen as soon as Lerner joined the IRS. "When she left the FEC, I thought, 'Wow, this means the not for profit division is gearing up politically,'" he said. "It didn't bode well, because of the way [the FEC] approached cases."

Lerner was questioning about whether or not people were praying for someone, during a depostion. Not now, but back when she was head of the FEC. Lerner is a perfect example of a bureaucrat that abuses authority and NEEDS to be removed from government service.

Religious activities, membership lists and political afiliations are off limits to government inquiry into tax status. There is no legitimate reason to engage in this other than to persecute those you disagree with and widen the net to abuse power more. Its behavior that government oversight is created to destroy.

Now Im going to shred the other half of your argument that its limited to the IRS.

Treasury consulted on multiple occasions about timing of IRS disclosure, source says

The Treasury Department was informed on three separate occasions that the Internal Revenue Service planned to disclose that it targeted conservative groups for scrutiny, and on one occasion, Treasury expressed concern about the form of the disclosure, a Treasury official said on Monday night.

In all cases, the official said, Treasury ultimately deferred to the IRS.

In late April, the IRS told the Treasury that senior tax official Lois Lerner was considering making a speech in which she would make a public apology for inappropriate conduct at the IRS in advance of an inspector general report documenting how tax agency officials gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups.

Treasury knew. IRS general counsel knew. Schuler knew. The ONLY reason to believe Obama didnt know what was going on was because someone within his cabinet decided to give him plausible deniability. Its my belief that someone close to Obama like Jarrett or Holder knew what was going on and the coverup is going to lead to more problems than the actual incident.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Bull****.

IRS's Lerner Had History of Harassment, Inappropriate Religious Inquiries at FEC | The Weekly Standard



Lerner was questioning about whether or not people were praying for someone, during a depostion. Not now, but back when she was head of the FEC. Lerner is a perfect example of a bureaucrat that abuses authority and NEEDS to be removed from government service.

Religious activities, membership lists and political afiliations are off limits to government inquiry into tax status. There is no legitimate reason to engage in this other than to persecute those you disagree with and widen the net to abuse power more. Its behavior that government oversight is created to destroy.

Now Im going to shred the other half of your argument that its limited to the IRS.

Treasury consulted on multiple occasions about timing of IRS disclosure, source says



Treasury knew. IRS general counsel knew. Schuler knew. The ONLY reason to believe Obama didnt know what was going on was because someone within his cabinet decided to give him plausible deniability. Its my belief that someone close to Obama like Jarrett or Holder knew what was going on and the coverup is going to lead to more problems than the actual incident.

No, that is not an argument, it is just inuendo. You are simply getting carried away by partisanship.

If you want to argue that the IRS was harassing conservative groups because they are conservative, not because they are tax cheats, you have a heavy burden that you have not met with you meager circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is that there were numerous tea party groups trying to get tax exemptions they were not entitled to.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

No, that is not an argument, it is just inuendo. You are simply getting carried away by partisanship.

If you want to argue that the IRS was harassing conservative groups because they are conservative, not because they are tax cheats, you have a heavy burden that you have not met with you meager circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is that there were numerous tea party groups trying to get tax exemptions they were not entitled to.

I'll look forward to reading the evidence you supply to support this claim.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

I'll look forward to reading the evidence you supply to support this claim.

You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you. Where is your evidence that there was a plot to attack conservatives for political purposes??

Without evidence, the default assumption is that the IRS was doing this TO COLLECT TAXES.
 
Re: IRS apologizes for inappropriately targeting conservative political groups [W:484

Yeahhh...I think you seriously need to sourc e your information about percentages, especially in light of the fact you are basing your entire argument on that.

We dont know concretely the numbers you are referring to, as far as I know. The more information that comes out the more we find out this was the norm. So I doubt the info you are using for numbers will remain accurate even if it is now.

This is going to be dense and slightly mathy, but the numbers are all in the IG report. Unfortunatly, reporters tend not to know much about statistics.

From the IG report.
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf

Page 8
Figure 4: Breakdown of Potential Political Cases by Organization Name
Tea Party: 72, 9/12: 11, Patriots: 13, Other 202.

Page 9:
Applications That the IRS Determined Required Minimal or No Additional Information for Processing
We reviewed a statistical sample of 94 I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) cases closed from May 2010 through May 2012 from a universe of 2,051 applications that the IRS determined required minimal or no additional information from the organizations (also referred to by the EO function as merit closures). We determined that two (2 percent) of 94 approved applications had indications of significant political
campaign intervention and should have been forwarded to the team of specialists. Based on our statistical sample, we project an estimated 44 merit closure applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases during this time period.

Applications Identified by the IRS That Required Additional Information for Processing
We reviewed a statistical sample of 244 I.R.C.§ 501(c)(4) cases closed from May 2010 through May 2012 or open as of May 31, 2012, from a universe of 2,459 applications that the IRS determined required additional information from the
organizations applying for tax-exempt status (also referred to by the EO function as full development applications) but were not forwarded to the team of specialists. For the applications that were available for our review, we found that 14 (6 percent) of 237 applications included indications of significant political campaign intervention and should have been processed by the team of specialists. We project an estimated 141 full development applications were not appropriately identified as potential political cases during this time period.

Page 10

We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention. However, we did not identify any indications of significant political campaign intervention for 91 (31 percent) of the 296 applications that had complete documentation. (footnote: Seventeen (19 percent) of the 91 applications involved Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 organizations.)

17 of the 96 Tea Party, 9/12/, and Patriot Groups were investigated unnecessarily. (17/96= 17.7%)
74 of the 202 “Other” groups were investigated unnecessarily. (74/202=36.6%)
36.6% / 17.6% = 2.07. Of the groups investigated, other groups were twice as likely to be unnecessarily investigated.

2,051+2,459 = 4510 Organizations evaluated.
(44+141)/4510 = 4.1% of applications not scrutinized enough
(91/4510) = 2.0% of applications scrutinized too much.
(4510-44-141-91)/4510=93.8% of applications correctly processed.
 
Back
Top Bottom