Page 17 of 30 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 299

Thread: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show[W:249]

  1. #161
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,762

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Absolutely! You can make statistics sound like they're saying anything you want them to say. That's why it's important to be good at math.

    I'd say that there's a pretty wide gulf between what we're finding out and what's being alleged. That's not to say that the IRS did nothing wrong, but there just isn't any evidence of any widespread conspiracy or political bias. The rest is just political posturing.

    Oh, and we do have that. I don't have that number off hand, but it's somewhere around 100. They would all need to be conservative groups in order to show even a slight amount of bias, and we know that's not true. (Patriot Majority was not listed in the approved groups meaning it's a limbo group).
    Id say that whats being alleged and whats being proven are coming closer and closer with more investigation. Whats your solution? Stop investigating?

    Bolded: THEY CONFESSED TO DOING IT!

  2. #162
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Id say that whats being alleged and whats being proven are coming closer and closer with more investigation. Whats your solution? Stop investigating?

    Bolded: THEY CONFESSED TO DOING IT!
    Continue investigating!!! Absolutely. Get to the bottom of it. I'd want to know
    1). Who wrote the BOLO and why
    2). Why was the criteria changed back and by whom?
    3). What should the IRS have actually done with these groups?
    4). Why did Lerner fail to disclose that this report was going out when she testified to the Senate?
    5). Why did the IRS detonate a scandal that was factually more benign?
    6). Is the IRS underfunded?
    6). What can we do to fix it?

    But where is the investigation going? Who knew about the OIG report in the WhiteHouse when. What does that have to do with anything? Unless there's some evidence that this comes from the Whitehouse (of which there's none), why are we wasting time investigating it? Investigations should not be political cudgels. I mean, why not investigate if Boehner planted this whole thing as a false flag operation? Investigate where the facts take us, not these silly partisan goose chases.

  3. #163
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,762

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Continue investigating!!! Absolutely. Get to the bottom of it. I'd want to know
    1). Who wrote the BOLO and why
    2). Why was the criteria changed back and by whom?
    3). What should the IRS have actually done with these groups?
    4). Why did Lerner fail to disclose that this report was going out when she testified to the Senate?
    5). Why did the IRS detonate a scandal that was factually more benign?
    6). Is the IRS underfunded?
    6). What can we do to fix it?

    But where is the investigation going? Who knew about the OIG report in the WhiteHouse when. What does that have to do with anything? Unless there's some evidence that this comes from the Whitehouse (of which there's none), why are we wasting time investigating it? Investigations should not be political cudgels. I mean, why not investigate if Boehner planted this whole thing as a false flag operation? Investigate where the facts take us, not these silly partisan goose chases.
    LOL false flag operation? Thats ****ing deranged.

    1) Lerner is taking the fifth---she knows.
    2) Lerner is taking the fifth....
    3) As I posted earlier, the kind of investigation they are conducting takes longer than one that determines just what they need.
    4) In all likelihood, because shes guilty as hell.
    5) Because its not benign, thats kind of the point.
    6) Dont give a ****.
    7) We cant do anything, congress can change the law. The IRS can make its investigations more politically neutral. The IRS can fire everyone involved with this operation and they probably should.

  4. #164
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    LOL false flag operation? Thats ****ing deranged.

    1) Lerner is taking the fifth---she knows.
    2) Lerner is taking the fifth....
    3) As I posted earlier, the kind of investigation they are conducting takes longer than one that determines just what they need.
    4) In all likelihood, because shes guilty as hell.
    5) Because its not benign, thats kind of the point.
    6) Dont give a ****.
    7) We cant do anything, congress can change the law. The IRS can make its investigations more politically neutral. The IRS can fire everyone involved with this operation and they probably should.
    That' the point. It's deranged. And taking the 5th doesn't imply guilt. It implies that she's the target of a criminal investigation... as Boehner has repeatedly stated.

    They don't need to change the law, they just need to enforce what's on the books now.. 501c4 organizations must be entirely dedicated to social welfare. Entirely is different than 51%

  5. #165
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,762

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    That' the point. It's deranged. And taking the 5th doesn't imply guilt. It implies that she's the target of a criminal investigation... as Boehner has repeatedly stated.

    They don't need to change the law, they just need to enforce what's on the books now.. 501c4 organizations must be entirely dedicated to social welfare. Entirely is different than 51%
    Except what was used was left political activities was accepted more often as social welfare. Meaning right political activities got scrutinized.

    You need to get it through your head that what you want to be the law doesnt excuse politically motivated scrutiny, despite how that scrutiny originates. Just because it fits your political agenda doesnt make it right under the law.

  6. #166
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Except what was used was left political activities was accepted more often as social welfare. Meaning right political activities got scrutinized.

    You need to get it through your head that what you want to be the law doesnt excuse politically motivated scrutiny, despite how that scrutiny originates. Just because it fits your political agenda doesnt make it right under the law.
    What evidence do you have that left political activities were accepted more often as social welfare?

  7. #167
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,762

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    What evidence do you have that left political activities were accepted more often as social welfare?
    The definitions of social welfare being used and accepted by the unit in question.

  8. #168
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    The definitions of social welfare being used and accepted by the unit in question.
    You mean this?

    To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, because its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit.

    Social Welfare Organizations

    It's a pretty sad state of things if you think that furthering the common good and general welfare of the community is an inherently liberal endeavour.

  9. #169
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,762

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    You mean this?

    To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, because its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit.

    Social Welfare Organizations

    It's a pretty sad state of things if you think that furthering the common good and general welfare of the community is an inherently liberal endeavour.
    Its called interpretations of said wording. Its sad when you are that damn gullible.

  10. #170
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:57 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    This is clear evidence of abuse.
    How is that clear evidence of abuse? If the IRS is out looking for "evidence of abuse" and there is "clear evidence of abuse" - why is it that these groups have not been charged or lost their tax-exempt status?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    So we have clear and compelling evidence of dramatic increase in abuse of 501c status in 2010. We also have clear evidence that the increase in abuse is essentially only among conservative groups.
    Because more money was spent? That's "abuse"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    So why can't we say that the IRS should be on the look out for conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare groups? And where's the evidence for abuse when we find that two thirds of the groups investigated were conservative, even though conservative groups made up 80% of the new applications and accounted for 85-90% of spending?
    Because it's discriminating by political ideology alone and for no other reason. If your evidence of abuse is that more money is being spent, then you investigate the groups that are spending the money. There are about 9 that are responsible for 95% of the spending. That's not what happened. They went after dozens of tiny groups with little or no spending simply because they had the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names.

Page 17 of 30 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •