• 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 conspiracies fall apart as BOLO list targeting ‘progressive’ groups revealed

sangha said:
It's not "my* concept of social welfare.

And only the right wingers seem to think that campaigning for a specific candidate is "social welfare"
Click to expand...

That is not what it says. Ill post again for those that cant or dont want to read the information, direct from the IGs report:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention," according to the report.
Click to expand...

They were targeted for policy positions. Social welfare can and does consist of educating the public of policy positions. Just because the administration or individual personnel in the IRS disagree with that position doesnt mean they get to use their power to question their tax status. Those goalposts are movin all over the place.
 
OpportunityCost said:
That is not what it says. Ill post again for those that cant or dont want to read the information, direct from the IGs report:



They were targeted for policy positions. Social welfare can and does consist of educating the public of policy positions. Just because the administration or individual personnel in the IRS disagree with that position doesnt mean they get to use their power to question their tax status. Those goalposts are movin all over the place.
Click to expand...

Because they believed their policy positions indicated that they weren't primarily focused on social welfare. It was inappropriate. It was wrong.

But that's not the same as "they were targeted because they were right wing" nor does it mean "the administration or individuals in the IRS disagreed with that position". The fact is, the guy in charge was a self-described "conservative republican". He probably agreed with those positions.
 
sangha said:
Because they believed their policy positions indicated that they weren't primarily focused on social welfare. It was inappropriate. It was wrong.

But that's not the same as "they were targeted because they were right wing" nor does it mean "the administration or individuals in the IRS disagreed with that position". The fact is, the guy in charge was a self-described "conservative republican". He probably agreed with those positions.
Click to expand...

Ahhh but he didnt make the criteria, the invasive questioning or the stalling tactics in DC in the determinations unit.

Some of us would like to know who did.
 
Bronson said:
Once again the usual clown show of Fascists are jumping to conclusions to try and shield their messiah from accountability. They immediately accept whatever smokescreen excuse is given to them because the truth doesn't matter to them. There were 500 Tea Party, Christian and Jewish groups specifically targeted, harassed and intimidated. Their applications were sent to a special exempt organizations technical group. No "Progressive" groups received such scrutiny.

'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online
Click to expand...

Of coirse it is possible a pattern had emerged in the conservative applications that warranted further scrutiny as a group.

In other words, a bunch of people trying to game the system ****ed it up for everybody.

Happens a lot. In history. Selfish people having their way ****ing things up for everybody.

Blaming the nonprofit police for being overzealous is kind of funny coming from people who usually excuse almost any example of cops being overzealous. (Long as its hippies)
 
What if...? said:
Of coirse it is possible a pattern had emerged in the conservative applications that warranted further scrutiny as a group.

In other words, a bunch of people trying to game the system ****ed it up for everybody.

Happens a lot. In history. Selfish people having their way ****ing things up for everybody.

Blaming the nonprofit police for being overzealous is kind of funny coming from people who usually excuse almost any example of cops being overzealous. (Long as its hippies)
Click to expand...

If they were obviously trying to, "game the system", then why did the IRS admit to wrong doing? Why delay the apps for a few years vice deny the app outright? if it's so obvious and all.

We just can't get past that one! :rofl
 
apdst said:
If they were obviously trying to, "game the system", then why did the IRS admit to wrong doing? Why delay the apps for a few years vice deny the app outright? if it's so obvious and all.

We just can't get past that one! :rofl
Click to expand...

Well, here's the cynical, beaurocrat way:

You can operate for a long time as a 501(c)(4) without being formally approved and get your exemptions retroactively.

If you make a group wait until AFTER an election, you can see if they're really interested or just trying to affect the election.

The only thing at risk is anonymity of donors if the request is ultimately denied.

If their donors major concern is anonymity, they will find a formally approved group to funnel money through. If not, there is no "risk" to the donor, as donations are not tax deductible, so they get their donations and motor right along until they are approved.

Sorting by obstruction. Pretty common govt technique.
 
What if...? said:
Well, here's the cynical, beaurocrat way:

You can operate for a long time as a 501(c)(4) without being formally approved and get your exemptions retroactively.

If you make a group wait until AFTER an election, you can see if they're really interested or just trying to affect the election.

The only thing at risk is anonymity of donors if the request is ultimately denied.

If their donors major concern is anonymity, they will find a formally approved group to funnel money through. If not, there is no "risk" to the donor, as donations are not tax deductible, so they get their donations and motor right along until they are approved.

Sorting by obstruction. Pretty common govt technique.
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer the question.
 
What if...? said:
Well, here's the cynical, beaurocrat way:

You can operate for a long time as a 501(c)(4) without being formally approved and get your exemptions retroactively.

If you make a group wait until AFTER an election, you can see if they're really interested or just trying to affect the election.The only thing at risk is anonymity of donors if the request is ultimately denied.

If their donors major concern is anonymity, they will find a formally approved group to funnel money through. If not, there is no "risk" to the donor, as donations are not tax deductible, so they get their donations and motor right along until they are approved.

Sorting by obstruction. Pretty common govt technique.
Click to expand...

Thats not for government to decide. Unless government has a horse in the race. Further, the obstruction only really occurred on one side. Its not sortiing at that point, its targeting.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Thats not for government to decide. Unless government has a horse in the race. Further, the obstruction only really occurred on one side. Its not sortiing at that point, its targeting.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's not the IRS's job to figure out if an organization is trying to cheat when applying for tax exempt status :roll:
 
apdst said:
You still didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say it was OK, just more likely than some vast conspiracy to keep groups that aren't supposed to be political from influencing an election.

Which was the original claim.
 
sangha said:
Yes, it's not the IRS's job to figure out if an organization is trying to cheat when applying for tax exempt status :roll:
Click to expand...

If the IRS spent the money to completely non-invasively investigate every 501 group for compliance the conservatives would scream to high heaven at the cost and demand some filtering criteria be used to save money.

You can't please em.
 
sangha said:
Yes, it's not the IRS's job to figure out if an organization is trying to cheat when applying for tax exempt status :roll:
Click to expand...

Its really amazing that the IRS admitted what it was doing and the process they used to do it targetted conservatives and somehow you cant admit it.
 
DA60 said:
Funny, they probably used the exact same argument against abolishing slavery and giving women the vote.

Suggesting that fair taxation is impossible is ignorant in the extremis.

Our discussion on this is done for now...I do not waste my time with closed-minded people.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Like I said historical ignorance: England abolished slavery in 1834 but that act was just one of many over centuries that stopped slavery in much of the world BEFORE the American Civil War.

The definition of "FAIR" as implied by your support of a single tax rate, zero deductions - doesn't quite fit the definition of FAIR that is held by a majority of people

Your answer is a fine example of "closed-minded people" who hold tightly to certain beliefs all while denying the reality of the world about them.
 
What if...? said:
Well, I didn't say it was OK, just more likely than some vast conspiracy to keep groups that aren't supposed to be political from influencing an election.

Which was the original claim.
Click to expand...

The IRS's apology is purdy solid evidence that they were doing something wrong. How can you defend these bastards?
 
apdst said:
The IRS's apology is purdy solid evidence that they were doing something wrong. How can you defend these bastards?
Click to expand...

I think they were doing the right thing the wrong way.

**** unlimited anonymous campaign donations.

How much did Al Qaida contribute to Obama?

I don't know and neither do you.
 
What if...? said:
I think they were doing the right thing the wrong way.

**** unlimited anonymous campaign donations.

How much did Al Qaida contribute to Obama?

I don't know and neither do you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's create a situation where contributers can be publically intimidated. That's what America's all about...right?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its really amazing that the IRS admitted what it was doing and the process they used to do it targetted conservatives and somehow you cant admit it.
Click to expand...

So which do you prefer:

Just let everybody have their nonprofit status with no scrutiny for fraud?

Or the IRS spending millions performing non-invasive investigations of all applicants?

You have declared any kind of "filtering" off-limits, so which of the choices above do you pick?
 
What if...? said:
So which do you prefer:

Just let everybody have their nonprofit status with no scrutiny for fraud?

Or the IRS spending millions performing non-invasive investigations of all applicants?

You have declared any kind of "filtering" off-limits, so which of the choices above do you pick?
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention this.

The way its going to work now is they can self determine in 120 days now and that status may be challenged on their income tax return in which case they can defend the status with an impartial arbitrator or judge. Im perfectly ok with that.
 
What if...? said:
So which do you prefer:

Just let everybody have their nonprofit status with no scrutiny for fraud?

Or the IRS spending millions performing non-invasive investigations of all applicants?

You have declared any kind of "filtering" off-limits, so which of the choices above do you pick?
Click to expand...

As an aside, are you admitting this is in fact what they did? And are you now excusing this action?

Just so we are clear on what you are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom