• 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 targeting included liberal groups

Fenton said:
The IRS just said it's targeting was widespread, but Lerner stated it was rogue agents initially in Cinci and she conferred with the lying perm head IRS Commisioner to plant a question.

The IRS admitted its scope was more widespread but there is no evidence "anyone did anything wrong"

But your left to attacking the source.

You are the one's being laughed at.
Click to expand...

Why laugh at me? I am not the one who owned myself here.
 
A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/2...’-way-it-did-‘tea-party’-groups#ixzz2XElIh14g
 
Redress said:
Why laugh at me? I am not the one who owned myself here.
Click to expand...

How did I " own myself " ?

Your'e being laughed at because you apparently haven't the capabillities of objective analysis.

You actually believe what the IRS is telling you the truth after they so Obviously contradicted themselves.

Through a planted question, that involved the then acting Commisioner, Lois Lerner stated that targeting involved " low level people " in Cinci.

Then she took the Fifth.

Now the IRS says it was wide spread.

You cant name one Progressive group that was targeted and denied but atorneys like Jay Sekulow are representing close to a hundred Conservative groups, some who had their donor list leaked illegally.

I'm not the one "owning myself " if you don't even know when your'e being lied to.
 
trfjr said:
A November 2010 version of the list
obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) groups are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off ”to Group 7822″ for further scrutiny.

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/06/2...’-way-it-did-‘tea-party’-groups#ixzz2XElIh14g
Click to expand...

I know.

Thread fail
 
Blue_State said:
A simplified tax code and this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I would prefer that the word progressive was in the search. I would hope it would bring us all together to reform the IRS monster.
Click to expand...

I would too actually, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately we have to have pissing matches and hear how Obama, the UN and the media are out to get them...

Wait for the evidence. Either it's nothing or it's really bad, but whatever happened to waiting for the truth to come out before rushing to judgement?
 
Fenton said:
How did I " own myself " ?

Your'e being laughed at because you apparently haven't the capabillities of objective analysis.

You actually believe what the IRS is telling you the truth after they so Obviously contradicted themselves.

Through a planted question, that involved the then acting Commisioner, Lois Lerner stated that targeting involved " low level people " in Cinci.

Then she took the Fifth.

Now the IRS says it was wide spread.

You cant name one Progressive group that was targeted and denied but atorneys like Jay Sekulow are representing close to a hundred Conservative groups, some who had their donor list leaked illegally.

I'm not the one "owning myself " if you don't even know when your'e being lied to.
Click to expand...

You owned yourself by using a source that is only going to tell you what you want to hear, while complaining about others putting up with being lied to. You further own yourself by making lots of assumptions about other people which are not accurate. Hint: I have not stated a position on the subject of what the IRS has done.
 
Mithros said:
A simplified income tax code wouldn't help. Non-profits are a completely different entity.

What would help is if the IRS denied 501c4 status to all groups that weren't entirely dedicated to social welfare (as stated in the law). Then these political groups would be moved from 501c4 status subject to IRS regulations,, into 527 status regulated by the FEC.

(Also, it's good that they used progressive even though progressive is a terrible search word for political activism. If you look through the list of approved groups you'll see many progressive baptist churches, and progressive medical groups. None of which have anything to do with politics.)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a simplified tax code allow for a proper definition of Non-profits and how to handle them? The reason you want to be a non-profit is so that the donations are tax-deductible. That helps attain more donations. I assume you knew that, but I stated it anyways. Back to where I was going. Defining who is non-profit clearly and succinctly would not allow for a "rogue" agent to make their own determination.

Progressive is a terrible search word. Agreed. But it is easy to filter through the mess.
 
rocket88 said:
I would too actually, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately we have to have pissing matches and hear how Obama, the UN and the media are out to get them...

Wait for the evidence. Either it's nothing or it's really bad, but whatever happened to waiting for the truth to come out before rushing to judgement?
Click to expand...

I think that premise sailed a long time ago. Pick any thread in breaking news.
 
Redress said:
You owned yourself by using a source that is only going to tell you what you want to hear, while complaining about others putting up with being lied to. You further own yourself by making lots of assumptions about other people which are not accurate. Hint: I have not stated a position on the subject of what the IRS has done.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you don't want to hang Obama before all the evidence is out. Therefore you drink the blue kool aid.
 
Blue_State said:
I think that premise sailed a long time ago. Pick any thread in breaking news.
Click to expand...

There's been so many things coming out I don't know if it's coming or going at this point. Plus who knows what is and isn't true. Issa and Obama arent' going to tell us, that's for sure.
 
rocket88 said:
There's been so many things coming out I don't know if it's coming or going at this point. Plus who knows what is and isn't true. Issa and Obama arent' going to tell us, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

In a word...transparency.
 
rocket88 said:
I would too actually, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately we have to have pissing matches and hear how Obama, the UN and the media are out to get them...

Wait for the evidence. Either it's nothing or it's really bad, but whatever happened to waiting for the truth to come out before rushing to judgement?
Click to expand...

I should admit I have always wanted to see the IRS restructured, and this situation adds fuel to the fire. So I am biased in that regard.
 
Democrat demands answers from Bush-appointee over ‘flawed’ IRS audit | The Raw Story

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has called for a congressional hearing into the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

J. Russell George, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004, conducted an audit of the IRS that concluded the federal agency had used “inappropriate criteria” to target tea party groups.

However, Levin revealed Monday that the same “inappropriate criteria” appeared to have been used to target progressive groups — and continued to be used after it had stopped being used for tea party groups.


“Please describe in detail why your report dated May 14, 2013 omitted the fact that ‘Progressives’ was used,” Levin wrote in a letter to George.

“The American public expects competent, impartial, unbiased, and non-political treatment from the IRS,” the Congressman concluded. “The same standard is also applicable to you and your organization. Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of Congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way.”

The audit stated the IRS was wrong to use “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) memos to target tea party groups. But at least seven BOLO memos used by IRS agents included the word “progressive,” a fact that was completely omitted from George’s audit.​
 
sawyerloggingon said:
These are results of the IRS investigating itself so I am highly suspicious of their findings. I think there will be some clarification of this claim coming soon.
Click to expand...

I tend to believe this is an effort to muddy the waters.
 
Blue_State said:
Wouldn't a simplified tax code allow for a proper definition of Non-profits and how to handle them? The reason you want to be a non-profit is so that the donations are tax-deductible. That helps attain more donations. I assume you knew that, but I stated it anyways. Back to where I was going. Defining who is non-profit clearly and succinctly would not allow for a "rogue" agent to make their own determination.

Progressive is a terrible search word. Agreed. But it is easy to filter through the mess.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, but non-profit status encompasses more than just charitable groups. Donations to 501c3 groups are tax deductible, but donations to 501c4 groups aren't.

And I think the problem is actually kind of complex. 501c4 status is kind of a needed one, but a hard one to define. Traditionally it's where you'd put something like a cycling group. A cycling group open to everyone isn't exactly a charity so donations shouldn't be tax deductible. This makes sense, because otherwise it would allow people to set up these groups to make their hobbies tax deductible. On the other hand, a cycling group isn't a for profit venture and shouldn't be treated like a business.

Now, say there's a dangerous street in a neighbourhood. Would it be wrong for that cycling group to raise awareness of the danger? Why shouldn't they be able to lobby their local representative? What if one politician supports a bike lane on that street, should the group be barred from supporting it?

Before Citizens United, this really wasn't an issue. A 501c4 that wanted to run adds would have to run them out of a separate account with disclosed donors. So there was no advantage to file as a 501c4 instead of a 527. Some 501c4's engaged in some political activity, but it wasn't all that significant.

Citizens United changed all of this. It allowed organizations to use general funds for political activities instead of specially segregated funds with disclosed donors. Suddenly there was a huge advantage to falsely file as a 501c4.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
These are results of the IRS investigating itself so I am highly suspicious of their findings. I think there will be some clarification of this claim coming soon.
Click to expand...

I agree with all except the "coming soon" part. ;)
 
pbrauer said:
Democrat demands answers from Bush-appointee over ‘flawed’ IRS audit | The Raw Story
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has called for a congressional hearing into the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

J. Russell George, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004, conducted an audit of the IRS that concluded the federal agency had used “inappropriate criteria” to target tea party groups.

However, Levin revealed Monday that the same “inappropriate criteria” appeared to have been used to target progressive groups — and continued to be used after it had stopped being used for tea party groups.


“Please describe in detail why your report dated May 14, 2013 omitted the fact that ‘Progressives’ was used,” Levin wrote in a letter to George.

“The American public expects competent, impartial, unbiased, and non-political treatment from the IRS,” the Congressman concluded. “The same standard is also applicable to you and your organization. Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of Congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way.”

The audit stated the IRS was wrong to use “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) memos to target tea party groups. But at least seven BOLO memos used by IRS agents included the word “progressive,” a fact that was completely omitted from George’s audit.​
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that not being included in the audit, because the audit was tasked with determining if conservative groups were subjected to political targeting. The audit concluded that there was inappropriate criteria, but that no politically biased targeting had occurred.

What happened after was a trainwreck. The IRS story was dumped by IRS officials to make it appear as if it were a scandal. Republican investigators selectively released testimony to back up this story. This should be investigated. I expect government oversight to act professionally and to provide the most accurate representation of their findings. If you want a special prosecutor, they should look into this.
 
Fenton said:
That was a lie Redress.

The recent claim Progressives were targeted.

The word " progressive " might have been added to the list but staffers were told to pass them through for approval while Tea Party Orginizations were held back for more " scrutiny".

Maybe you could name. Progressive group that was denied ?

So that aside, if the targeting was more wide spread why did Lois Lerner lie and say it was just rogue agents in Cinci ?

Why did she plead the Fifth ?

The IRS just told you the targeting lasted longer and was more wide spread but they cant find evidence of worng doing.

Do you guys like being lied to ?
Click to expand...

Speaking of lies. Could you name a "tea party" group that was denied?
As far as pleading the 5th, if you were an American you would know that does not imply guilt.
 
pbrauer said:
Democrat demands answers from Bush-appointee over ‘flawed’ IRS audit | The Raw Story

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has called for a congressional hearing into the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

J. Russell George, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004, conducted an audit of the IRS that concluded the federal agency had used “inappropriate criteria” to target tea party groups.

However, Levin revealed Monday that the same “inappropriate criteria” appeared to have been used to target progressive groups — and continued to be used after it had stopped being used for tea party groups.


“Please describe in detail why your report dated May 14, 2013 omitted the fact that ‘Progressives’ was used,” Levin wrote in a letter to George.

“The American public expects competent, impartial, unbiased, and non-political treatment from the IRS,” the Congressman concluded. “The same standard is also applicable to you and your organization. Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of Congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way.”

The audit stated the IRS was wrong to use “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) memos to target tea party groups. But at least seven BOLO memos used by IRS agents included the word “progressive,” a fact that was completely omitted from George’s audit.​
Click to expand...

Name one Progressive group that was refused it tax status.

Your Bush blame is pathetic.
 
iguanaman said:
Speaking of lies. Could you name a "tea party" group that was denied?

As far as pleading the 5th, if you were an American you would know that does not imply guilt.
Click to expand...

You can start with the four that spoke in front of the oversight Comittee and go from there.

One of course, the Defense for Marriage group that had its donor list leaked.

Anyway, name a Progressive group that was denied its tax status.
 
Fenton said:
Your Bush blame is pathetic.
Click to expand...

And you are blaming people of an incapacity for rational thought? George here is in reference to J. Russell George. Not George Bush. Way to read into things that you want or expect to hear rather than what is actually being communicated
 
Fenton said:
You can start with the four that spoke in front of the oversight Comittee and go from there.

One of course, the Defense for Marriage group that had its donor list leaked.

Anyway, name a Progressive group that was denied its tax status.
Click to expand...

Not one group was denied only delayed. There is a difference.
 
iguanaman said:
Speaking of lies. Could you name a "tea party" group that was denied?
As far as pleading the 5th, if you were an American you would know that does not imply guilt.
Click to expand...

Do you know something the IRS doesn't? The IRS has acknowledged "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. They admit it!

Even Lois Lerner, before she took the Fifth, said IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications. Lerner also said that in some cases groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases.

Why involve yourself in the debate if you don't know the facts?
 
iguanaman said:
Speaking of lies. Could you name a "tea party" group that was denied?
As far as pleading the 5th, if you were an American you would know that does not imply guilt.
Click to expand...

they didn't deny them because then the Tea Party groups could appeal the decision and the IRS would have been required to give a reason for the denial they would have had to turn over their paper work. instead they put them in limbo for over 2 year and counting. while progressive groups got their approval in 9 months
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom