Ofcourse the IRS being used by the corrupt Obama Administration like the Gestapo to target Obama's political enemies had an effect on the election. It's why Obama managed to get elected. A lot of the grass roots opposition against him was effectively sidelined by his fascist goons during the campaign. This allowed him to use resources that otherwise would have been spent countering such groups on campaign blitzes during the summer trashing Romney as some evil dog murdering tax cheat.
The Left have sold their souls to Obama. They shamelessly try to defend and rationalize fascism. It's disgusting.
So, you do think that the IRS did nothing wrong in ideologically targeting political opponents. This is why we have been saying that progressives like you are dangerous to the country.Why do innocent people confess to crimes they didn't commit?
This is a fine example of why the tax code as it exists now needs to be tossed for a flat tax.Whether any of us like it, it's the job of the IRS to prevent fraud.
How? You're kidding right? Did you watch any of the testimony yesterday be these various groups? Intimidation, harassment, potential donors scared off for fear of their personal, and business information being made public to political opponents, etc...IOW, true disenfranchisement....How exactly were Republicans / conservatives impacted by what happened?
But, you've already stated it pretty clearly Pete, you don't see anything wrong with that as long as it is happening to people you hate. How sad.
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
The question that far too many are failing to ask: Did the IRS 'target' other, non-conservative groups? The record seems to say YES
It does certainly look like some of those who are shouting the loudest today about IRS oppression, may need to begin hiring attorneys for defense against charges of violating the federal regs governing 501(C)(4) tax exemptionsIRS Has History of Extra Scrutiny of Groups - WSJ.com
The Internal Revenue Service unit under fire for its reviews of conservative organizations has a long history of targeting groups with extra scrutiny, including foreclosure-assistance charities, credit-counseling services and New York Jewish charities, interviews with current and former employees show.
The scrutiny has included such tactics as listening to telephone calls between groups and their clients, according to one group's lawyer. In the case of tea-party organizations, IRS officials studied social-media postings to gauge political activity.
Sometimes the tactic of extra scrutiny for particular kinds of groups seeking tax exemptions helped manage a flood of entities in areas where abuse was common; other times it snagged innocent parties, subjected applicants to long delays and even made IRS employees feel uncomfortable.
Testimony from the Inspector General does call out some employees for doing a poor job but in some instances, the poor job was because they didn't do enough questioning.Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics
When CVFC, a conservative veterans’ group in California, applied for tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service, its biggest expenditure that year was several thousand dollars in radio ads backing a Republican candidate for Congress.
The Wetumpka Tea Party, from Alabama, sponsored training for a get-out-the-vote initiative dedicated to the “defeat of President Barack Obama” while the I.R.S. was weighing its application.
Representatives of these organizations have cried foul in recent weeks about their treatment by the I.R.S., saying they were among dozens of conservative groups unfairly targeted by the agency
But a close examination of these groups and others reveals an array of election activities that tax experts and former I.R.S. officials said would provide a legitimate basis for flagging them for closer review.
“Money is not the only thing that matters,” said Donald B. Tobin, a former lawyer with the Justice Department’s tax division who is a law professor at Ohio State University. “While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”
I hope readers notice that ever so insignificant bit about "three-quarters of the groups targeted . . . were not dentified as opponents of the White House"Republican Hearings Backfire As IRS Testifies That More Groups Need To Be Investigated
The lesson Republicans should have taken from Monday’s IRS hearings is “be careful what you wish for.” One of the recommendations based on the audit is “to conduct a review to assess how the IRS monitors I.R.C. sections 501(c)(4)(6) organizations to ensure that political campaign intervention does not constitute their primary activity.” On top of that, the audit revealed that there were many groups whose political intervention in campaigns should have flagged them for a review.
The Honorable J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, testified Monday in a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing on the IRS “scandal”. George based his testimony on an audit in which they found a few things that don’t bode well for conservatives’ “social welfare groups”, since they outspent liberals 34-1 via nonprofits on political issues. Namely, the IRS needs to investigate more of these groups that are “intervening” in political campaigns, not less.
George explained that of the 296 cases singled out for review, the majority had indications of significant political campaign intervention. 91 cases did not (31%). Of those 91, only 17 involved Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups.
The rest were “targeted” but were not Tea Party/Patriot/9/12 groups.
Furthermore, nearly three-quarters of the groups “targeted” for inspection were not identified as opponents of the White House, so that blows the idea of being targeted for being a political enemy out of the water.
It was also pointed out that 3,357 applications were made in 2012 compared with 1,735 in 2010, before Citizens United.
George mentioned that inappropriate criteria were used by agents in Ohio, due to a lack of oversight, which was attributable to human challenges (read: lack of funding, and thank a Republican).
The recommendations make the gist of the issue clear. This is not a political scandal, this is a government agency that is understaffed and underfunded, tasked with dealing with a huge influx of “social welfare” groups seeking tax exempt status post Citizens United. These groups were often intervening in political campaigns. The IRS workers were unclear as to how much political work these groups could be doing and still qualify as non profits.
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
Also I think the typical progressive IMO is ignorant, brainwashed or stubborn. I wouldn't hold those opinions if they were baseless.
The communists were quite clear on how they managed to obtain an authoritarian socioeconomic socialist model and which tactics they used to obtain their Animal Farm.
Presently we're in the desensitization process - government is good, the government gives some of us free stuff - anyone who opposes is bad.
I suppose getting free stuff from one party is enough to hate the opposition and enough to trust the hand that feeds you?
In short our present government is like the really nice stranger in the park that gives kids candy and gives them rides to school in his nice big brown 1979 G-van with tinted windows and progressives are the "kids" that take the candy and go for a ride to Wally World.