• 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 higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

mak2 said:
Why is that? morals, ethics and integrity used to be big on the right. If it still was there would not be sooooo many RW lies floating around the RW blogosphere. Just sayin...but when I typed that I was going for the funny implying the left never had them and the right lost them. But if you must be offened, please...
Click to expand...

I don't read the rightwing blogs. The Left lives in a glass house, look at the Prez.
 
Wiseone said:
The President didn't have anything to do with this personally, and there's been no evidence to suggest he did.
Click to expand...

He hired the partisan hacks didn't he? That's the next thing down to giving the order yourself. The guy wanted to be President to execute a social justice agenda. And he will doze over anyone that stands in his way. I thought you were independent, seems you never have a right lean on any issue. The Left can't be correct on every issue could they? Even for you?
 
American said:
No one said they should get scrutiny, but a liberal President putting the beat down on conservative groups stinks to high heaven, and he needs a beating for it. It's one thing to be partisan in a campaign, and quite another to apply the law differently.
Click to expand...

If that were true, I agree. But too many are running on the notion that it IS true (liberal president putting the beat down...), when there is no evidence supporting it and solid reason to believe it was just the IRS doing its job. The problem is that much of the Congressional inquiry is not about finding the truth; it is all about looking for the proverbial Northwest Passage between Obama directives and the IRS behavior; its a witch hunt.
 
tererun said:
The government should not be providing tax free status to promote and endorse political ideology. I think they should make the law much more specific and require political activism to be taxed equally. You could easily have a community group pay taxes on their political activity under present filing conditions. It is not unheard of to have NFPs actually pay taxes on certain activities that fall outside of their tax free income.
Click to expand...

You'll get no argument from me if they ALL had to pay taxes. But that's not the way it works. ACORN, as an example, was a 501c4, difference being any contribution to THAT organization was tax deductible, unlike c3's. If that wasn't filled with political ideology, I don't know what group was.
 
Peter Grimm said:
There's no evidence to suggest that he didn't.
Click to expand...

When you accuse someone, you have to prove your accusation. People aren't guilty until proven innocent.

zimmer said:
Well, at a very minimum, at least you admit the Gestapo/IRS is a tool of Leftists.
Click to expand...

No I'm not, shut up.

American said:
He hired the partisan hacks didn't he? That's the next thing down to giving the order yourself. The guy wanted to be President to execute a social justice agenda. And he will doze over anyone that stands in his way. I thought you were independent, seems you never have a right lean on any issue. The Left can't be correct on every issue could they? Even for you?
Click to expand...

He did indeed, as the President he's responsible for the people who work under him. I'm not leaning to the left here, I think the level of detail the IRS went into for these conservative groups should be the level of detail for every tax exempt organization. That's not a left wing position. And I don't even believe that tax exempt status should be given to any organization that engages in any political activity whatsoever, not the current law where as long as its not your primary activity then you're OK. That's not a left wing position either because the left wing groups, just like the ring wing, want that tax exempt status for their political organizations pretending to be social welfare groups so they can hide their donor lists.
 
zimmer said:
Tererun... you are revealing a severe logic deficit. Let me help you:

  1. When Muslims are responsible for a disproportionate amount of terrorist crimes, it is wise to pull more of them aside. It's not racial profiling... it's called survival.
  3. When the majority of illegals are Hispanic and have a foreign akzent, the chances are greater that they are illegal.
  5. If you are in a hood with blacks and the area is known for criminal activity, you would be dumb not to investigate suspicious behavior.
  7. When the Gestapo/IRS targets only one side of the equation for political purposes... that My Dear is the use of a government agency to intimidate and suppress.
Click to expand...

So you see no reason to look more closely at a group that doesn't want to pay any taxes using a tax free exception that doesn't apply to political groups when forming groups that look political? yeah, i guess i can see where your hypocrisy would make you selectively blind to profiling for a purpose.
zimmer said:
I know you, and points 1 through 3 have you bouncing off the walls, so let me assist you with some clear thinking from a black man who isn't shackled by the Left's perverse political correctness. This in a Presidential Primary Debate in 2000.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it makes complete sense from a profiling standpoint to look at groups which are very political to make sure they are not violating tax free status by using their funds to behave in a political way. Sorry, but you are just saying the same thing that muslims, blacks, and latinos have been saying about open profiling of them for years now. Like i said it sucks when it happens to you, but if it is tolerated as a method then it is being applied with logic and reasoning on the tea party.
 
Wiseone said:
When you accuse someone, you have to prove your accusation. People aren't guilty until proven innocent.



No I'm not, shut up.



He did indeed, as the President he's responsible for the people who work under him. I'm not leaning to the left here, I think the level of detail the IRS went into for these conservative groups should be the level of detail for every tax exempt organization. That's not a left wing position. And I don't even believe that tax exempt status should be given to any organization that engages in any political activity whatsoever, not the current law where as long as its not your primary activity then you're OK. That's not a left wing position either because the left wing groups, just like the ring wing, want that tax exempt status for their political organizations pretending to be social welfare groups so they can hide their donor lists.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to judge what right and left wing groups want, but what the Obama Administration did. They're loaded with partisan hacks (like any administration), except these people went too far. And that comes from having the attitude that it's okay to hire all your political allies no matter how partisan crazy they are. So you put one in charge of a very sensitive department........approving tax exempt status. And it just so happens that a bunch of conservative groups get hung up for months prior to the 2012 election (nothing suspicious there). If Obama wasn't so partisan and ideological himself, he may have been more careful about hiring idiots. You hire your political friends, you get what you get when they **** up. The minute that bitch took the 5th, he should have jerked her the hell out of there......YOU'RE FIRED. She's an appointee, she remains at the pleasure of the President. Same with Holder, who probably has so much dirt on Obama, he's afraid to fire him. Obama has had a charmed presidency provided by the MSM. This administration even went after reporters, talk about arrogant. If this had been Bush with a Dem House, you can bet your ass Articles of Impeachment would been drafted already.......and front page headlines 24/7/365.
 
MaggieD said:
You'll get no argument from me if they ALL had to pay taxes. But that's not the way it works. ACORN, as an example, was a 501c4, difference being any contribution to THAT organization was tax deductible, unlike c3's. If that wasn't filled with political ideology, I don't know what group was.
Click to expand...

You can claim it was full of political ideology, but they simply did not work in a political way. They had a purpose beyond politics. they did not run candidates. they did not organize voters for a single candidate. They simply acted within their purposes to provide non-political services to people. You may be able to make a case they provided services that may have helped out an illegal part of the populace, though that is poorly supported, but they certainly are not a political party like the tea party.
 
American said:
I'm not here to judge what right and left wing groups want, but what the Obama Administration did. They're loaded with partisan hacks (like any administration), except these people went too far. And that comes from having the attitude that it's okay to hire all your political allies no matter how partisan crazy they are. So you put one in charge of a very sensitive department........approving tax exempt status. And it just so happens that a bunch of conservative groups get hung up for months prior to the 2012 election (nothing suspicious there). If Obama wasn't so partisan and ideological himself, he may have been more careful about hiring idiots. You hire your political friends, you get what you get when they **** up. The minute that bitch took the 5th, he should have jerked her the hell out of there......YOU'RE FIRED. She's an appointee, she remains at the pleasure of the President. Same with Holder, who probably has so much dirt on Obama, he's afraid to fire him. Obama has had a charmed presidency provided by the MSM. This administration even went after reporters, talk about arrogant. If this had been Bush with a Dem House, you can bet your ass Articles of Impeachment would been drafted already.......and front page headlines 24/7/365.
Click to expand...

When you said he appointed the person in charge, I thought you meant the head of the IRS, but if you're talking about a mid level or even upper level employee of the IRS, well those positions just aren't filled directly by the President. Well really I should say "acting head of the IRS" which is another problem in that agencies like the IRS shouldn't have long standing "active heads" they need real leaders.

Peter Grimm said:
You confuse a court of law with an internet discussion board.
Click to expand...

I just try to have standards of integrity on an internet discussion board. :/
 
Wiseone said:
No I'm not, shut up.
Click to expand...
See your quote below...

Wiseone said:
... The only problem was they didn't give the liberal groups trying to cheat the tax system the same level of analysis.

I can understand conservative angry that these groups were treated differently...
Click to expand...
I stand by my analysis of your post. ... that, at a very minimum, at least you admit the Gestapo/IRS is a tool of Leftists.

Now you don't like what you wrote and want a Shaddup? ROTFLOL... naaaaaaaaaaah. I don't do a da Shaddup. I don't do subservient either.
 
zimmer said:
See your quote below...


I stand by my analysis of your post. ... that, at a very minimum, at least you admit the Gestapo/IRS is a tool of Leftists.

Now you don't like what you wrote and want a Shaddup? ROTFLOL... naaaaaaaaaaah. I don't do a da Shaddup. I don't do subservient either.
Click to expand...

1) This is a single IRS office, its not the entire organization and its not policy of the organization.

2) Until the IRS starts dragging people out of their homes to murder them in the streets in the middle of the night, the IRS isn't the gestapo. So stop this bull**** you god damn overly dramatic partisan asshole. You're a disagree to everything you claim to stand for.
 
Wiseone said:
The President didn't have anything to do with this personally, and there's been no evidence to suggest he did.
Click to expand...

At least not yet - the defenders of Nixon were equally as adamant in the early stages.
 
tererun said:
So you see no reason to look more closely at a group that doesn't want to pay any taxes using a tax free exception that doesn't apply to political groups when forming groups that look political? yeah, i guess i can see where your hypocrisy would make you selectively blind to profiling for a purpose.
Click to expand...
Well, that is all nice and dandy, but it doesn't deny the fact Lois Lerner is heading the Gestapo/IRS on behalf of her party.

Read the following. How does a Nigerian get this kind of service... when he was operating illegally? How? He's a Democrat with connections. Republicans must wait 3-years... and they get anal probed... but a connected D from a foreign country gets the red carpet.

Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller
 
MaggieD said:
You'll get no argument from me if they ALL had to pay taxes. But that's not the way it works. ACORN, as an example, was a 501c4, difference being any contribution to THAT organization was tax deductible, unlike c3's. If that wasn't filled with political ideology, I don't know what group was.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right Maggie - they were so filled with political ideology, many of it's members were convicted of election fraud trying to get Obama into the White House.

I suppose, if you're on the loonie left, you could argue that getting the Obama's into social housing was their goal, so all is good.
 
Wiseone said:
He did indeed, as the President he's responsible for the people who work under him. I'm not leaning to the left here, I think the level of detail the IRS went into for these conservative groups should be the level of detail for every tax exempt organization. That's not a left wing position. And I don't even believe that tax exempt status should be given to any organization that engages in any political activity whatsoever, not the current law where as long as its not your primary activity then you're OK. That's not a left wing position either because the left wing groups, just like the ring wing, want that tax exempt status for their political organizations pretending to be social welfare groups so they can hide their donor lists.
Click to expand...

But they didnt. Either way you slice it, they either put the right wing groups under additional scrutiny or they allowed less scrutiny on the left wing groups, either action is a violation of civil rights under afiliation laws. Current laws dont allow the types of questions that were being asked and it was being directed through Washington, there is already an email trail. I dont look at this like you do, the IRS is required to be within the law at all times---I would rather we had citizens and political groups getting away with tax evasion than the IRS being used to carry out political agendas and chilling political speech and organizing. Would you be ok with extra examination of Roman Catholic churches and less for Protestant churches? Its the very same thing and probably more damaging because its directed at political opposition.

Your problem, and the one of many of the left on this board is that you have bought the Citizens United excuse hook, line and sinker and think its going to ruin politics. Well, it didnt ruin it before and it probably wont again. If your agenda is to eliminate non profits that engage in any political activity at all, be prepared for the fallout because its my belief there are a lot more left wing than right wing groups on that list.
 
OpportunityCost said:
But they didnt. Either way you slice it, they either put the right wing groups under additional scrutiny or they allowed less scrutiny on the left wing groups, either action is a violation of civil rights under afiliation laws. Current laws dont allow the types of questions that were being asked and it was being directed through Washington, there is already an email trail. I dont look at this like you do, the IRS is required to be within the law at all times---I would rather we had citizens and political groups getting away with tax evasion than the IRS being used to carry out political agendas and chilling political speech and organizing. Would you be ok with extra examination of Roman Catholic churches and less for Protestant churches? Its the very same thing and probably more damaging because its directed at political opposition.

Your problem, and the one of many of the left on this board is that you have bought the Citizens United excuse hook, line and sinker and think its going to ruin politics. Well, it didnt ruin it before and it probably wont again. If your agenda is to eliminate non profits that engage in any political activity at all, be prepared for the fallout because its my belief there are a lot more left wing than right wing groups on that list.
Click to expand...

I don't care about how many left wing groups there are or right wing groups that would be damaged by not being allowed to claim tax exempt status. I don't deny the IRS did something wrong. I totally agree that all these groups, regardless of their political opinions, should be treated equally under the law. I'm not political and I'm not interested in helping one type of group over another type. If you think there's something "left wing" about all that, then fine I'm left wing.

Also, I don't like people telling me what my opinions are. So don't presume to tell me what my opinion is about something because it fits into whatever little made up sterotype you've created in your head or subscribed to by someone who told you want to believe, or whatever other reason you have it. Why don't you ask what my opinion on Citizen's United is instead of just telling me?
 
MaggieD said:
You'll get no argument from me if they ALL had to pay taxes. But that's not the way it works. ACORN, as an example, was a 501c4, difference being any contribution to THAT organization was tax deductible, unlike c3's. If that wasn't filled with political ideology, I don't know what group was.
Click to expand...
Do you have proof ACORN was indeed a 501c4 and not a 501c3?
 
pbrauer said:
Do you have proof ACORN was indeed a 501c4 and not a 501c3?
Click to expand...

Only Wiki. Sometimes they're not right . . .

ACORN was composed of a number of legally distinct nonprofit entities and affiliates including a nationwide umbrella organization established as a 501(c)(4) that performed lobbying; local chapters established as 501(c)(3) nonpartisan charities; and the national nonprofit and nonstock organization, ACORN Housing Corporation. ACORN's priorities included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, labor-oriented causes and social justice issues. ACORN pursued these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation.[
Click to expand...

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Wiseone said:
I don't care about how many left wing groups there are or right wing groups that would be damaged by not being allowed to claim tax exempt status. I don't deny the IRS did something wrong. I totally agree that all these groups, regardless of their political opinions, should be treated equally under the law. I'm not political and I'm not interested in helping one type of group over another type. If you think there's something "left wing" about all that, then fine I'm left wing.

Also, I don't like people telling me what my opinions are. So don't presume to tell me what my opinion is about something because it fits into whatever little made up sterotype you've created in your head or subscribed to by someone who told you want to believe, or whatever other reason you have it. Why don't you ask what my opinion on Citizen's United is instead of just telling me?
Click to expand...

You are already excusing the behavior by saying the problem was it wasnt done to both groups. The problem was it was done at all. Organizations dont have to reveal their member lists, event attendees (if free)---they have to reveal donor lists and funding streams. They certainly dont have to reveal what church they go to and prayer information! The information ebing asked for isnt legal. It never should have been done. It goes a lot higher than a few people in Cincinnati.

Secondly you have all the earmarks of someone crabby about Citizens United---these groups were abusing the law, etc etc. Thats the left talking point and has been since this started---to deflect from whether there was political targeting and one sided investigations.
 
Wiseone said:
This is exactly what the IRS is supposed to do with these groups, political organizations trying to pass themselves off as social welfare or charity organizations. And in an investigation you need information. The only problem was they didn't give the liberal groups trying to cheat the tax system the same level of analysis.

I can understand conservative angry that these groups were treated differently, but I can't understand their anger that many of them weren't able to cheat the American taxpayer. Integrity is a lost virtue.
Click to expand...

But all the liberal groups were given a pass by the IRS to cheat the American taxpayer and the conservative groups were not. Now do you get why they are angry? The IRS is supposed to treat everyone the same --- Right? Guess not.
 
MaggieD said:
Only Wiki. Sometimes they're not right . . .

ACORN was composed of a number of legally distinct nonprofit entities and affiliates including a nationwide umbrella organization established as a 501(c)(4) that performed lobbying; local chapters established as 501(c)(3) nonpartisan charities; and the national nonprofit and nonstock organization, ACORN Housing Corporation. ACORN's priorities included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, labor-oriented causes and social justice issues. ACORN pursued these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation.[ACORN was composed of a number of legally distinct nonprofit entities and affiliates including a nationwide umbrella organization established as a 501(c)(4) that performed lobbying; local chapters established as 501(c)(3) nonpartisan charities; and the national nonprofit and nonstock organization, ACORN Housing Corporation. ACORN's priorities included: better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, better public schools, labor-oriented causes and social justice issues. ACORN pursued these goals through demonstration, negotiation, lobbying for legislation, and voter participation.[
Click to expand...

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
That says the national umbrella organization was a 501c4, while the local chapters were 501c3's. So, donations to the local chapers are tax deductible.
 
pbrauer said:
That says the national umbrella organization was a 501c4, while the local chapters were 501c3's. So, donations to the local chapers are tax deductible.
Click to expand...

You and I agree. Here's what I said:

ACORN, as an example, was a 501c4, difference being any contribution to THAT organization was tax deductible, unlike c3's. If that wasn't filled with political ideology, I don't know what group was.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. I had it exactly backwards. Mea culpa. However, as you point out, their contributions were tax deductible.
 
MaggieD said:
You and I agree. Here's what I said:



Oh, I see. I had it exactly backwards. Mea culpa. However, as you point out, their contributions were tax deductible.
Click to expand...
Yes, the local 501c3 organizations were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom