• 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!

Acting IRS commissioner resigns in wake of agency scandal

Kane said:
The media in America is perpetually bi-polar and has a serious case of ADD. Perhaps you can relate.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe I'd be able to relate to that?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Oh, I figured that would be obvious of any Obama hater. :)
I keep reading how conservatives were targeted because any group with the name "patriot" was automatically flagged (as well as Tea Party). What I don't understand is how "patriot" is a conservative word.
Click to expand...

I don't either...but it's surely a point to ponder, isn't it, given that this was a one of the red-flag words.

Of course, so was "Constitution" and "constitutional."
 
Have to say, remembering back, pretty much every presidential admin in my lifetime (maybe not Carter) was at least accused of using the IRS to go after their enemies. JFK and Johnson did it, Nixon did it, Reagan probably did it, Bush 1 was the ex-CIA head, chances are good he did it, Clinton did it for sure, Bush maybe did it and now we know Obama has it in his toolkit. Pretty farking disgusting.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Oh, I figured that would be obvious of any Obama hater. :)
I keep reading how conservatives were targeted because any group with the name "patriot" was automatically flagged (as well as Tea Party). What I don't understand is how "patriot" is a conservative word.

Exactly. This should not be made into a political scandal, and those who are trying to turn it into one are doing so for selfish reasons, not out of any real indignation. The number of filings DOUBLED in the two years between 2010 and 2012, which just so happened to coincide with the Citizen's United verdict. I think a poster in another thread said it best. I usually have an incredibly high opinion of myself, but even I don't think I could say it better.
Click to expand...

Keep trying to push that line.:lamo
 
nota bene said:
I don't either...but it's surely a point to ponder, isn't it, given that this was a one of the red-flag words.
Click to expand...
It is a point to ponder.

I do not doubt there was targeting of conservative groups. My feelings on this though are there is nothing wrong with targeting groups who are trying to file against the rules. Let's just make sure we're getting all of them, not some of them.
Jack Hays said:
Keep trying to push that line.:lamo
Click to expand...
I wait for the day where you respond to me with something relevant to the discussion. It hasn't happened yet, but I certainly believe you can do it if you just give it a chance.
 
Slyfox696 said:
...What I don't understand is how "patriot" is a conservative word.
Click to expand...

It is not. Given the time frame of the investigation, the influx of new applications we both know who overwhelmingly used this name. Perhaps you can provide examples of progressive/liberal organizations that have "patriot' in their names. This would certainly solidify your supposition.

...I think a poster in another thread said it best. I usually have an incredibly high opinion of myself, but even I don't think I could say it better.
Click to expand...

But his assertion is incorrect. Note that the table on page 2 indicates that 501c4's do not have to 'apply to the IRS'.
 
Last edited:
And today we get an outraged Obama crowing how he instructed Jack Lee to ask for and secure the resignation of the IRS head, who is slotted to be done in two weeks anyway. wow what a tough guy. :rofl:
 
clownboy said:
Have to say, remembering back, pretty much every presidential admin in my lifetime (maybe not Carter) was at least accused of using the IRS to go after their enemies. JFK and Johnson did it, Nixon did it, Reagan probably did it, Bush 1 was the ex-CIA head, chances are good he did it, Clinton did it for sure, Bush maybe did it and now we know Obama has it in his toolkit. Pretty farking disgusting.
Click to expand...

Here's what I don't know, and maybe you can clarify: In any of these instances, was the Admin found to be guilty of doing it?
 
The real reason why this was odd is that tea party groups are generally too dumb to know how to avoid paying taxes, so targeting them is plain stupid.

After all, the very fact that they tried to apply for tax-exempt status in an attempt to avoid the IRS tells you those organizations are naive.

The best tax avoiders do it illegally.
 
DiAnna said:
The guy in charge, if he knew what was going on, should be first to go. If he didn't know what was going on, he should still be the first to go for not knowing what's happening under his nose.

Frankly, I hope lots of heads roll here. Unlike too many of our current politically motivated "scandals", this is a REAL scandal that should infuriate every single American, regardless of their political views.
Click to expand...

This is really no big deal. The IRS commissioner isn't exactly raking in cash, so for him to quit is hardly a life-changing event for him. Some other idiot will just take his place.
 
Dickieboy said:
But his assertion is incorrect. Note that the table on page 5 indicates that 501c4's do not have to 'apply to the IRS'.
Click to expand...
I'm not telling you that you're wrong, but I do not see what you are talking about. Could you quote the section you're referring to?

j-mac said:
And today we get an outraged Obama crowing how he instructed Jack Lee to ask for and secure the resignation of the IRS head
Click to expand...
Is he any relation to Bruce Lee?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm not telling you that you're wrong, but I do not see what you are talking about. Could you quote the section you're referring to?
Click to expand...

I was mistaken, it is figure 1 on PAGE 2...sorry.
 
The guy in charge, if he knew what was going on, should be first to go
Click to expand...

mr miller, according to tigta, the inspector general, was informed of all "details" in may, 2012

mr shulman, the commissioner at the time was also told

IRS's Steven Miller knew of targeting in 2012 - Lauren French - POLITICO.com

mr shulman testified in congress (way and means, i think) 2 months earlier, march, 2012, categorically and unequivocally denying THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR we all now know was going on

it wasn't any big secret, i knew

bill kristol told me

IRS Won't Move Richmond Tea Party Tax Status

i remember arianna affirming it

HuffingtonPost: IRS Battling Tea Party Groups Over Tax-Exempt Status

while it is possible if not plausible that mr shulman didn't know when he swore under oath in march, 2012, why when he was apprised, according to tigta, two months later did he fail to come clean?

we are looking at CRIMES on top of CRIMES

why did he and his successor, the freshly fired mr miller, lie to dozens of direct inquiries from congressfolk and committee since?

these people are looking at jail time---whadya think they know?

will the worm turn?

stay tuned
 
Dickieboy said:
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
Figure 2, page 3 doesn't even remotely support this assertion. Can you provide a source?
Click to expand...
Uhh...I think you need to look again:

501(c)4:

2009: 1751
2010: 1735
2011: 2265
2012: 3357

That's right there from the table you told me to look at. :)

Dickieboy said:
I was mistaken, it is figure 1 on PAGE 2...sorry.
Click to expand...
I think there's probably context missing there. If these groups didn't have to file with the IRS, why did they?

Something seems a little off there, but it's too late right now to figure out what it is.
 
solletica said:
The real reason why this was odd is that tea party groups are generally too dumb to know how to avoid paying taxes, so targeting them is plain stupid.

After all, the very fact that they tried to apply for tax-exempt status in an attempt to avoid the IRS tells you those organizations are naive.

The best tax avoiders do it illegally.
Click to expand...

Besides bait...whats the purpose of this mess of a post?
 
Just for the sake of discussion assume the IG's report is absolutely correct, the IRS focused singularly on 'right leaning' organizations AND it was done by 1-2 employees. What would ones motivation be to do this/what did they hope to gain? I cannot figure this out. Presumably they knew that what the were doing were against some policy somewhere and jeopardize their employment. Folks just don't do things like this 'just to do it'.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Uhh...I think you need to look again:

501(c)4:

2009: 1751
2010: 1735
2011: 2265
2012: 3357

That's right there from the table you told me to look at. :)
Click to expand...

Why did you not include the c3's? From the report "The criteria in the BOLO listing were Tea Party organizations applying for I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) or I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) status." The IG report included them as being 'discriminated against'. Further, the c3 donations are tax deductible, c4's are not.

I think there's probably context missing there. If these groups didn't have to file with the IRS, why did they?

Something seems a little off there, but it's too late right now to figure out what it is.
Click to expand...

Agree
 
Dickieboy said:
Just for the sake of discussion assume the IG's report is absolutely correct, the IRS focused singularly on 'right leaning' organizations AND it was done by 1-2 employees. What would ones motivation be to do this/what did they hope to gain? I cannot figure this out. Presumably they knew that what the were doing were against some policy somewhere and jeopardize their employment. Folks just don't do things like this 'just to do it'.
Click to expand...

I suspect there's more to this than what's being told in the mainstream media. I doubt Obama himself cares to target those groups, because they have little or no money.

So the only people that could be ultimately behind all this (if there were someone at the top pulling the strings) are those that would have the ethical gall to steal from those who have little. And that, of course, implies the GOP establishment.
 
they have little or no money
Click to expand...

LOL!

as if mr miller was after the money

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Click to expand...

USAToday: IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

what an idiot

obama, i mean

this is what happens when ones words to links ratio exceeds 5000
 
Dickieboy said:
Why did you not include the c3's?
Click to expand...
Because this is not about the 501(c)3. This is about the handling of 501(c)4.

The applications in question were processed by an office in Cincinnati that handles most applications for 501(c)(4) status and had seen the number of applications rise sharply beginning in 2010, the year of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which blessed unlimited campaign spending by corporations. Tax-exempt groups became a popular channel for the new wave of political spending.
Click to expand...
Obama: Alleged IRS political targeting 'outrageous' - CNN.com
 
OpportunityCost said:
Besides bait...whats the purpose of this mess of a post?
Click to expand...

The facts of life is not bait--ignorant individuals don't know how to beat the system, and are therefore not worth targeting, period..

Anyone with an ounce of noodle who truly wanted to avoid the IRS would never raise suspicion by applying for tax-exempt status, which is certainly difficult to get legally.

It's common knowledge that tea party groups harbor mostly poor, uneducated folks, i. e. not the kind of individuals that could or would scam the IRS out of millions; since they applied for tax-exempt status, it tells you they're honest/innocent.

So I'm not criticizing them; I'm defending them by stating that they're simply too naive to be a credible threat to the IRS, and therefore should not be targeted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom