• 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!

If Obama knew....

Vote:

  • Total voters
    59
MMC said:
Heya CJ :2wave: .....I think looking into the Democrats may give some insight. Even Huff-Po knew.

IRS Scandal Puts Dems Who Called For Investigation Of Conservative Group In A Bind

During the fall months of 2010, congressional Democrats grew increasingly alarmed that conservative non-profit groups, backed by big-money donors, would tip the scales of the upcoming election.

Many of the groups were filing for 501(c)(4) status, which allowed them to keep donors secret but forced them into policy advocacy -- not political campaigning -- as their primary activity. And Democrats, facing the prospect of tens of millions of dollars being spent against them, complained that these groups were hardly the "social welfare organizations" they claimed to be.

On Sept. 29, 2010, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) sounded the alarm. The chair of the influential Senate Finance Committee, which plays an important oversight role of the tax code, said he had "serious questions about whether such organizations are operating in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code."

The IRS, it turns out, took those concerns seriously. But in the process of addressing them, the tax agency managed to make itself the scandal.

When the truth was revealed this past week, the political world pounced. And among the first to express umbrage was Baucus.

“These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust," said the Montana Democrat. "Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable."

One and a half years after Baucus' letter, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) sent one of his own to the IRS urging the agency to "investigate whether any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity." In a press release announcing that letter, Welch specifically cited Crossroads GPS, "the Karl Rove-backed group" as a potential violator of the law.

"This is a disaster for its reputation and it is no different than the Nixon use of the IRS to go after political enemies," he said. "You just can't do that. It sets them back, but it doesn't change their obligation to the American people to enforce the Internal Revenue Service code."

Welch's 2012 letter was one of several that Democratic lawmakers sent to the IRS. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also asked the agency if it intended to investigate these "social welfare" organizations. In a floor speech in September 2012, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) warned that there was insufficient regulation of these groups. His select investigative committee also announced earlier this year that it would look into why the IRS had failed to properly probe such 501(c)(4) groups. It's unclear if the investigation will now shape up.

Those senators were cheered on by liberal-leaning outlets, which also urged the IRS to play an active role. A New York Times editorial on May 7, 2012 said, "taxpayers should be encouraged by complaints from Tea Party chapters" that they were being targeted by the IRS. The paper went on to say that the IRS should be applying more scrutiny, "across the board."

About one year later, after the IRS had apologized for its filtering, the Times editorial page wrote that the IRS had been "absolutely correct to look into the abuse of the tax code." The mistake, it added, was applying the criteria it did.

"Clearly Senate Democrats recognize their own political vulnerability on this story and they're working furiously to get ahead of it. But that doesn't change the fact that they publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very tactics they're now condemning, and that's a contradiction that will haunt them politically in the weeks ahead," said Brian Walsh, a former top spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "I'm not holding my breath but it would be an appropriate act of bravery and candor if the IRS asked Max Baucus why he's not sitting at the witness table next to them during these upcoming hearings.".....snip~

IRS Scandal Puts Dems Who Called For Investigation Of Conservative Group In A Bind
Click to expand...

Good afternoon MMC - another well presented post!
 
It's worth impeachment just to show that a President can't pull a a shrug and say "I don't know what my administration is doing."
 
iacardsfan said:
Lemme just say that even if we were to begin the impeachment process, look at his senate. Not even worth the time fellas.
Click to expand...

It takes 67 Aye votes to convict any president of impeachment. This means along with the 44 Republicans, it would have to garner 23 Democratic votes. There has to be a whole lot of there, there and as of now there isn't. I also think most Americans who are not die hard Republicans or Democrats will take a lot of convincing especially since the GOP made a mockery of the impeachment process during the Clinton administration.
 
It's worth impeaching cuz he's obamy. Not a mod stance. Never did he saying what is being quoted. All POTUS's would be impeached by an Issa-type. Boehner's revenge will lead to his failed legacy.
 
Josie said:
If Obama knew what the IRS was doing to conservative groups and allowed it to occur, would you support going forward with impeachment?
Click to expand...
The IRS wasn't doing anything illegal, they were just enforcing the tax code.
 
Perotista said:
It takes 67 Aye votes to convict any president of impeachment. This means along with the 44 Republicans, it would have to garner 23 Democratic votes. There has to be a whole lot of there, there and as of now there isn't. I also think most Americans who are not die hard Republicans or Democrats will take a lot of convincing especially since the GOP made a mockery of the impeachment process during the Clinton administration.
Click to expand...

There are 47 Repubs Pero. Still hungover? And McCain will not vote against Obama if politico's story from today is true.
 
pbrauer said:
The IRS wasn't doing anything illegal, they were just enforcing the tax code.
Click to expand...

With that view of things, perhaps you can explain why liberals are so adamantly opposed to racial profiling in law enforcement or in national security - after all, the police are just investigating where most of the crime is committed.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What if Obama learned about this at the same time as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, according to Carney Everybody knew but Obama. But As I said else where. I am willing to bet Jarrett, Plouffe, and Axelrod knew.

Carney: Okay Fine, Senior Officials Knew the IRS Report was Coming, but Nobody Told Obama.....

More information seeps out, and the "official" story changes again.

Even MSNBC can't fully turn a blind eye to how things seem to keep "evolving" in the briefing room these days. So we're clear, Carney's new version of events is that top-level White House officials knew about the Inspector General's investigation into the IRS for some time, but chose not to inform the president about it. He claims that President Obama's chief of staff, top lawyer, and Treasury Secretary all knew this political megabomb was about to detonate, but decided their boss didn't need to know about it.

Just to keep the "who knew what?" inquiries straight, there are two basic questions pertaining to White House knowledge of the IRS scandal that remain unresolved, both of which have inched closer to the president's door in recent days. The first involves when Team Obama -- within the administration or at the campaign -- first knew about the practice of IRS targeting. Carney and the president were both a bit cagey on this point last week, then numerous media outlets reported on Friday that high-ranking administration officials at Treasury found out about the targeting scheme in June of 2012. That would be roughly six months before the election, in case that wasn't clear. Did Treasury brass fail to impart that knowledge to anyone else? Really? The second question is when, specifically, the president himself knew about the Inspector General's report (and therefore, the scandal).....snip~

Carney: Okay Fine, Senior Officials Knew the IRS Report was Coming, but Nobody Told Obama - Guy Benson
 
MMC said:
Heya CJ :2wave: .....I think looking into the Democrats may give some insight. Even Huff-Po knew.

IRS Scandal Puts Dems Who Called For Investigation Of Conservative Group In A Bind

During the fall months of 2010, congressional Democrats grew increasingly alarmed that conservative non-profit groups, backed by big-money donors, would tip the scales of the upcoming election.

Many of the groups were filing for 501(c)(4) status, which allowed them to keep donors secret but forced them into policy advocacy -- not political campaigning -- as their primary activity. And Democrats, facing the prospect of tens of millions of dollars being spent against them, complained that these groups were hardly the "social welfare organizations" they claimed to be.

On Sept. 29, 2010, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) sounded the alarm. The chair of the influential Senate Finance Committee, which plays an important oversight role of the tax code, said he had "serious questions about whether such organizations are operating in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code."

The IRS, it turns out, took those concerns seriously. But in the process of addressing them, the tax agency managed to make itself the scandal.

When the truth was revealed this past week, the political world pounced. And among the first to express umbrage was Baucus.

“These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust," said the Montana Democrat. "Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable."

One and a half years after Baucus' letter, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) sent one of his own to the IRS urging the agency to "investigate whether any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity." In a press release announcing that letter, Welch specifically cited Crossroads GPS, "the Karl Rove-backed group" as a potential violator of the law.

"This is a disaster for its reputation and it is no different than the Nixon use of the IRS to go after political enemies," he said. "You just can't do that. It sets them back, but it doesn't change their obligation to the American people to enforce the Internal Revenue Service code."

Welch's 2012 letter was one of several that Democratic lawmakers sent to the IRS. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also asked the agency if it intended to investigate these "social welfare" organizations. In a floor speech in September 2012, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) warned that there was insufficient regulation of these groups. His select investigative committee also announced earlier this year that it would look into why the IRS had failed to properly probe such 501(c)(4) groups. It's unclear if the investigation will now shape up.

Those senators were cheered on by liberal-leaning outlets, which also urged the IRS to play an active role. A New York Times editorial on May 7, 2012 said, "taxpayers should be encouraged by complaints from Tea Party chapters" that they were being targeted by the IRS. The paper went on to say that the IRS should be applying more scrutiny, "across the board."

About one year later, after the IRS had apologized for its filtering, the Times editorial page wrote that the IRS had been "absolutely correct to look into the abuse of the tax code." The mistake, it added, was applying the criteria it did.

"Clearly Senate Democrats recognize their own political vulnerability on this story and they're working furiously to get ahead of it. But that doesn't change the fact that they publicly pressured the IRS to engage in the very tactics they're now condemning, and that's a contradiction that will haunt them politically in the weeks ahead," said Brian Walsh, a former top spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "I'm not holding my breath but it would be an appropriate act of bravery and candor if the IRS asked Max Baucus why he's not sitting at the witness table next to them during these upcoming hearings.".....snip~

IRS Scandal Puts Dems Who Called For Investigation Of Conservative Group In A Bind
Click to expand...

UPDATE: 8:35 p.m. -- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Justin Barasky emailed this statement.

No rational human being including Mitch McConnell thinks that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are operating social welfare organizations that deserve tax exempt status. However, Democratic senators have been outspoken in their condemnation of what took place at the IRS.
 
CanadaJohn said:
With that view of things, perhaps you can explain why liberals are so adamantly opposed to racial profiling in law enforcement or in national security - after all, the police are just investigating where most of the crime is committed.
Click to expand...
Is the tax code 501 c(4) meant for major political donations?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yeah.

But Given that the Obama administration is actually focusing on The IRS scandal to me indicates that they believe their hands are clean.
Click to expand...

Guess who else did the same exact thing when they had a little scandal. ;)
 
pbrauer said:
UPDATE: 8:35 p.m. -- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Justin Barasky emailed this statement.

No rational human being including Mitch McConnell thinks that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are operating social welfare organizations that deserve tax exempt status. However, Democratic senators have been outspoken in their condemnation of what took place at the IRS.
Click to expand...

These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust," said the Montana Democrat. "Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable."

One and a half years after Baucus' letter, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) sent one of his own to the IRS urging the agency to "investigate whether any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity." In a press release announcing that letter, Welch specifically cited Crossroads GPS, "the Karl Rove-backed group" as a potential violator of the law.

"This is a disaster for its reputation and it is no different than the Nixon use of the IRS to go after political enemies," he said. "You just can't do that. It sets them back, but it doesn't change their obligation to the American people to enforce the Internal Revenue Service code."

Welch's 2012 letter was one of several that Democratic lawmakers sent to the IRS. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also asked the agency if it intended to investigate these "social welfare" organizations. In a floor speech in September 2012, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) warned that there was insufficient regulation of these groups. His select investigative committee also announced earlier this year that it would look into why the IRS had failed to properly probe such 501(c)(4) groups. It's unclear if the investigation will now shape up.....snip~

You should read the link Presented. Did you think Baucaus was speaking for his health? Do you think Justin can get past his Bosses remarks to the press? :lol:

“These actions by the IRS are an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public’s trust," said the Montana Democrat. "Targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate but it is intolerable."

Also you forget Post 23. That's 2010.....and way earlier insight.
 
pbrauer said:
Is the tax code 501 c(4) meant for major political donations?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant - don't be disingenuous - you know full well the issue is the unequal application of the law and the unequal intimidation that can be levied by such a powerful agency of government. If you don't know that, shame on you for not being diligent.
 
Henrin said:
Guess who else told the people they were going after the truth? ;)
Click to expand...

IDK my bff jill

don't get me wrong, chances are there's going to be some 'huge, crippling' piece of evidence against Obama, that's going to be all the rage.....except there's one little bit of information, one critical bit, that cannot be proven. Obama would slip through and the right wing will bitch and moan about it for the next decade.

Honesty, if he did wrong, impeach him. I'm not a fan of the man.
 
Yep, I am all for it. If Obama knew a government entity was harassing his political enemies and he allowed it, that is a clear abuse of power and I would support impeaching him. But how bout when it comes out there was no wrong doing in Benghazi will you also support impeaching all the republicans that went completely crazy over it with no evidence of wrong doing?
 
Josie said:
If Obama knew what the IRS was doing to conservative groups and allowed it to occur, would you support going forward with impeachment?
Click to expand...

What, Obama knew the IRS was using intelligent discriminators to identify potential political groups applying for tax-exempt status under a category reserved for groups that were only secondarily political? Seems like intelligent use of time.

I appreciate the fact that the Right Wing media is having a field day with this, but is doing so by spreading mis-information. They have you believe that people were targeted, harassed, audited or otherwise denied their rights. None of this happened. In fact, no taxpayers were harmed in the making of this "scandal" No one was denied the tax exempt status sought. The default position of a 501(c)(4) application is that you get the tax exempt status unless the IRS takes it away. In no case did the IRS deny this status.

There is NO impeachable offense here. This is just wishful thinking on the part of those that did not vote for Obama. Why do Republicans feel that impeachment is a part of the election process? They have trivialized it to the point of making a mockery of our Constitution.

Settle down and enjoy the ride. You get another shot in 2016.... or more likely 2020.
 
Last edited:
mak2 said:
Yep, I am all for it. If Obama knew a government entity was harassing his political enemies and he allowed it, that is a clear abuse of power and I would support impeaching him. But how bout when it comes out there was no wrong doing in Benghazi will you also support impeaching all the republicans that went completely crazy over it with no evidence of wrong doing?
Click to expand...

There were no criminal actions in Benghazi and the follow up to it - and I don't think anyone is claiming there was - the IRS story is quite different.
 
upsideguy said:
What, Obama knew the IRS was using intelligent discriminators to identify potential political groups applying for tax-exempt status under a category reserved for groups that were only secondarily political? Seems like intelligent use of time.

There was no harm in any this. No one was denied the tax exempt status. The default position is that you get the tax exempt status unless the IRS takes it away. It did not.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of those that did not vote for Obama. Settle down and enjoy the ride. You get another shot in 2016.... or more likely 2020.
Click to expand...

That's just embarrassing.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Irrelevant - don't be disingenuous - you know full well the issue is the unequal application of the law and the unequal intimidation that can be levied by such a powerful agency of government. If you don't know that, shame on you for not being diligent.
Click to expand...


501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's just embarrassing.
Click to expand...

What is embarrassing is how many Americans feign outrage and have no idea what really happened.

Why don't you try to explain what happened in your own words. My guess is that you cannot, like most people outraged by this.... Please explain how it fits the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors"

... then there are the Canadians, who feign outrage about the IRS and I can't for the life of me understand why they care.
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

....and, if you notice within that wikipedia cite, you don't even have to apply to be a 501(c)(4); its presumed.
 
pbrauer said:
501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Still irrelevant.

It's illegal to blow up a plane - why don't you encourage police and air security to profile arabs and muslims, to the exclusion of all others, who've been the bombers in virtually all cases. Same principle you're supporting at the IRS.
 
pbrauer said:
501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees

501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top
The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

ED-AQ789_PW0517_D_20130516174414.jpg


Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.

Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?

Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.....snip~

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top - WSJ.com
 
upsideguy said:
What, Obama knew the IRS was using intelligent discriminators to identify potential political groups applying for tax-exempt status under a category reserved for groups that were only secondarily political?
Seems like intelligent use of time.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the fact that the Right Wing media is having a field day with this, but is doing so by spreading mis-information. They have you believe that people were targeted, harassed, audited or otherwise denied their rights. None of this happened. In fact, no taxpayers were harmed in the making of this "scandal"
No one was denied the tax exempt status sought.
Click to expand...
The default position of a 501(c)(4) application is that you get the tax exempt status unless the IRS takes it away. In no case did the IRS deny this status.

There is NO impeachable offense here. This is just wishful thinking on the part of those that did not vote for Obama. Why do Republicans feel that impeachment is a part of the election process? They have trivialized it to the point of making a mockery of our Constitution.

Settle down and enjoy the ride. You get another shot in 2016.... or more likely 2020.
Click to expand...

1) Then why doesn't he take credit for it?
2) aaaaaaaah ... I see ... you're trying to sell the notion that a 3 year delay in granting 501c4 status by asking ridiculously onerous questions is not really rejecting the request.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom