Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House

trfjr · May 17, 2013

The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

Ok enough is enough is this not proof enough for impeachment

Fisher · May 17, 2013

trfjr said:
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

Ok enough is enough is this not proof enough for impeachment

Nope. But now that the press knows Obama has been spying on them, you can bet if there is dirt out there, they are going to find it. Be patient, Grasshoppa'.

trfjr · May 17, 2013

Fisher said:
Nope. But now that the press knows Obama has been spying on them, you can bet if there is dirt out there, they are going to find it. Be patient, Grasshoppa'.

how many got caught in the lie that the Obama administration had no knowledge I know Carney lied and i do believe so did Obama

Fisher · May 17, 2013

trfjr said:
how many got caught in the lie that the Obama administration had no knowledge I know Carney lied and i do believe so did Obama

Still not criminal to lie to people if not under oath. Before they go after the first black President they are going to need something felonious to keep it from looking like a lynching in the minds of a good chunk of America, and probably rightfully so. I mean if anybody deserved to be impeached in recent years it was Ronald Wilson Reagan whose administration actively broke federal law.

trfjr · May 17, 2013

Fisher said:
Still not criminal to lie to people if not under oath. Before they go after the first black President they are going to need something felonious to keep it from looking like a lynching in the minds of a good chunk of America, and probably rightfully so. I mean if anybody deserved to be impeached in recent years it was Ronald Wilson Reagan whose administration actively broke federal law.

PC is going to be the down fall of this great nation. It is just as racist not to go after someone solely based on their color of their skin as would be to do so

Fisher · May 17, 2013

trfjr said:
PC is going to be the down fall of this great nation. It is just as racist not to go after someone solely based on their color of their skin as would be to do so

Perhaps but that is just reality whether one likes it or not. If he were the second black President it would be game on.

Fishstyx · May 17, 2013

Fisher said:
Still not criminal to lie to people if not under oath. Before they go after the first black President they are going to need something felonious to keep it from looking like a lynching in the minds of a good chunk of America, and probably rightfully so. I mean if anybody deserved to be impeached in recent years it was Ronald Wilson Reagan whose administration actively broke federal law.

So in order to hold a black President accountable of a lack of ethics, it has to be felonious? The only people who will view it as a lynching are partisan hacks and race merchants. Frankly, who gives a crap what they think anyway.

Fisher · May 17, 2013

Fishstyx said:
So in order to hold a black President accountable of a lack of ethics, it has to be felonious? The only people who will view it as a lynching are partisan hacks and race merchants. Frankly, who gives a crap what they think anyway.

Swing voters would care. The Black community that would come out like never before would care. The Hispanic Community that would feel like this would deny them their immigration reform would care. Impeachment should not be used for transient causes unrelated to the personal conduct of the person being impeached or else you are opening a can marked "Worms" containing pit vipers, though technically one can be impeached for any reason that the House determines impeachable, but then the Senate has to agree to remove them, and well, that just won't happen so why bother.

rocket88 · May 17, 2013

We all know that "President" Biden means he's got the nod wrapped up in '16, right?

If true, it's over. Rake him over the coals.

trfjr · May 17, 2013

Fisher said:
Swing voters would care. The Black community that would come out like never before would care. The Hispanic Community that would feel like this would deny them their immigration reform would care. Impeachment should not be used for transient causes unrelated to the personal conduct of the person being impeached or else you are opening a can marked "Worms" containing pit vipers, though technically one can be impeached for any reason that the House determines impeachable, but then the Senate has to agree to remove them, and well, that just won't happen so why bother.

It will happen if a lot of those democrat senators want to be reelected in 2014 You can only support a President for so long before it makes you look like a partisan hack

Erod · May 17, 2013

Wow. Well, this is going to dominate the news for the next three years for sure now.

iacardsfan · May 17, 2013

Several flaws in this. 1st: The Senate would never impeach obama. 2nd: Joe biden would then take over as President (SCARY) 3rd: is there really a problem with looking more closely at those who oppose taxes ( or at least more taxes). they are the ones most likely not to be paying. I certainly don't condone it, but in all reality there is nothing really criminal there.

Erod · May 17, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Several flaws in this. 1st: The Senate would never impeach obama. 2nd: Joe biden would then take over as President (SCARY) 3rd: is there really a problem with looking more closely at those who oppose taxes ( or at least more taxes). they are the ones most likely not to be paying. I certainly don't condone it, but in all reality there is nothing really criminal there.

Quite the opposite. Those are the only ones who are paying. That's why Democrats love taxes. They barely have to pay them, if at all.

iacardsfan · May 17, 2013

Erod said:
Quite the opposite. Those are the only ones who are paying. That's why Democrats love taxes. They barely have to pay them, if at all.

Ehh not quite sure on that. I'm a democrat and I payed a higher effective tax rate then Mitt Romney did. I know the majority of my co-workers did as well, it was quite the fiasco around election time.

Samhain · May 17, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Several flaws in this. 1st: The Senate would never impeach obama. 2nd: Joe biden would then take over as President (SCARY) 3rd: is there really a problem with looking more closely at those who oppose taxes ( or at least more taxes). they are the ones most likely not to be paying. I certainly don't condone it, but in all reality there is nothing really criminal there.

Then why did they ask pro-life groups to promise not to picked PP? Or that if they recited prayers, and to notify the IRS of the content of their prayers? Or to notify the IRS their donor lists?

What was the point of that?

And did the IRS have any actual data to back up who was evading taxes in March of 2010 when they started this practice? Nope,they didn't. But if they were going to start stereotyping people, why didn't they just audit all the Jews? They are the ones with all the money in the world, right? Oh wait, they did that too.

I guess that just means the IRS is filled with dumbasses.

trfjr · May 17, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Several flaws in this. 1st: The Senate would never impeach obama. 2nd: Joe biden would then take over as President (SCARY) 3rd: is there really a problem with looking more closely at those who oppose taxes ( or at least more taxes). they are the ones most likely not to be paying. I certainly don't condone it, but in all reality there is nothing really criminal there.

1st they will if they want to get reelected in 2014 or 2016 you can only defend a failed president for so long before you become a political hack,
2nd Biden will be harmless he will be as lame of a duck as Ford was and we will have a republican house and senate after 2014
im going to ignore the rest of your post if you see what the IRS did as not being wrong. your to far gone

Samhain · May 17, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Ehh not quite sure on that. I'm a democrat and I payed a higher effective tax rate then Mitt Romney did. I know the majority of my co-workers did as well, it was quite the fiasco around election time.

If you have an effective tax rate over 14%, then you are overpaying. I make a **** ton of money, and I'm nowhere near that.

Fenton · May 17, 2013

rocket88 said:
We all know that "President" Biden means he's got the nod wrapped up in '16, right?

If true, it's over. Rake him over the coals.

So you don't see a problem with this ? That information that could have possibly changed the outcome of the election and could have saved millions the extended suffering of four more years of Obama ?

iliveonramen · May 17, 2013

trfjr said:
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=2&

Ok enough is enough is this not proof enough for impeachment

The issue isn't heightened scrutiny for political organizations it's the criteria used for that heigtened security.

If Obama was aware they were using "Tea Party" "9/12" or other typical names for polititcal organizations that's one thing.

If he was told just that they were going to start investigating organizations that supposedly provide "social welfare" but really just are political organizations which is what this article seems to apply....there's nothing wrong or partisan about that.

iacardsfan · May 17, 2013

Samhain said:
Then why did they ask pro-life groups to promise not to picked PP? Or that if they recited prayers, and to notify the IRS of the content of their prayers? Or to notify the IRS their donor lists?

What was the point of that?

And did the IRS have any actual data to back up who was evading taxes in March of 2010 when they started this practice? Nope,they didn't. But if they were going to start stereotyping people, why didn't they just audit all the Jews? They are the ones with all the money in the world, right? Oh wait, they did that too.

I guess that just means the IRS is filled with dumbasses.

As I said, I don't condone it, I would like to point out though that the majority of this occurred under a Bush appointed commissioner.

Samhain · May 17, 2013

iliveonramen said:
The issue isn't heightened scrutiny for political organizations it's the criteria used for that heigtened security.

If Obama was aware they were using "Tea Party" "9/12" or other typical names for polititcal organizations that's one thing.

If he was told just that they were going to start investigating organizations that supposedly provide "social welfare" but really just are political organizations which is what this article seems to apply....there's nothing wrong or partisan about that.

The article states that the IG was investigating the IRS, not the organizations, therefore, your second "if" statement is not possible. Furthermore, when this practice started(March 2010), there were less organizations filing for tax-exempt status than in 2009, so the data doesn't even back up why they would start using a groups name in their examinations, nor does it explain why they asked many of the questions of these groups and not all groups.

iacardsfan · May 17, 2013

Samhain said:
If you have an effective tax rate over 14%, then you are overpaying. I make a **** ton of money, and I'm nowhere near that.

I don't know what you do, or who you hired to get that for you but I obviously have a need to file my taxes more effectively.

Samhain · May 17, 2013

iacardsfan said:
I don't know what you do, or who you hired to get that for you but I obviously have a need to file my taxes more effectively.

I use turbo tax. Best 50 bucks you can spend.

iacardsfan · May 17, 2013

Samhain said:
I use turbo tax. Best 50 bucks you can spend.

Hmm. thanks for the advice.

Fenton · May 17, 2013

iacardsfan said:
Several flaws in this. 1st: The Senate would never impeach obama. 2nd: Joe biden would then take over as President (SCARY) 3rd: is there really a problem with looking more closely at those who oppose taxes ( or at least more taxes). they are the ones most likely not to be paying. I certainly don't condone it, but in all reality there is nothing really criminal there.

Well it's a little early to make that assertion.

Honestly this is just getting started as now new information has com out about the IRS leaking donor's name's to Democrat political action groups AND to left wing fringe activist groups. THAT'S ILLEGAL.

Truth is NOTHING honest comes out of this administration.

Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House

trfjr

Fisher

trfjr

Fisher

trfjr

Fisher

Fishstyx

Fisher

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

trfjr

Erod

iacardsfan

Erod

iacardsfan

Samhain

trfjr

Samhain

Fenton

iliveonramen

Pontificator

iacardsfan

Samhain

iacardsfan

Samhain

iacardsfan

Fenton