IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

Mithros · May 23, 2013

MMC said:
Well my point was Obama knew that he was dictating the change of direction. He won in 2008. Was getting his people into place. While always going after the Repubs. So yeah he was cleaning house. Plus setting the tone for the change up. His Administration. Which his people knew his agenda.

2009 rolls along Team Obama is in play. AmeriCorps was being investigated. Obama finds out and s**t cans the IG after his findings on his buddy. Grassley and the Media Carries it all into 2010. While pointing out that Obama didn't even have any grounds to fire the IG over. Other than he lost confidence in the man. What a crock a s**t. Then True the Vote takes place. "Why" them first. Well their Platform says it all. Election Fraud and that's what they were talking about. So Naturally The Democrats are going to panic. Can't have more groups out there solely focused on Election fraud and be a Conservative Group from the Right garnering up more money. That could upset the Demo Applecart. Which now we know who sent letters to the IRS. As well as Levin's intention to hold a Committee hearing over why the had failed to address the Demos Side of the issue.

Unfortunately one can always go and blame the Previous Administration......talk about what they did was wrong. Use that as the rational and excuse. That, because it was done before. That none should say anything about it. That they should accept this is the way things are. Busssssh......5years later. Buussssh its what he did. Busssssh the same ignoramus that all the left claims is a dunce. Buuuush policy destroyed us. Despite most of Clintons S**t taking affect all throughout Buuuuuusssh time.

Also yeah it was a crappy firing but Obama didn't fail to stop the investigation.....he just came in on the end of it, after the IG had already made its discovery and findings of The Mayor of Sacramento. Which naturally with the Media Coverage and Grassley being aware, Johnson would do the Right thing and pay back the money.

You didn't think that The Mayor of Sacramento would be highlighted in National Coverage and just think he could walk away from the issue.....now did you? That he could say screw it and not pay the money back.....Right? Kinda Hard for Obama to stop what he knew was being reported to the media and Walpin. That would look like direct interference into an Investigation. Which is why Obama waited until it concluded to make his move. Which again shows he is aware of things in the beginning of 2010. At least with the IRS and this issue.

My thinking is he doesn't know what was going down with the Justice Dept. That falls on Holder and the Democrats. Like Schumer, Welch, and any other Democrats that were sending letters and Emails to the IRS over it. I would even check those Pol's phone records to see if calls were made. Course I would play it fair and go after any Repubs that were trying to do it to the Democrats.

Which to me.....getting rid of the Two party system. Just seems more and more like the Right thing to do. Then maybe we wont have to worry as much about such an Issue.

You can't blame this on the President.. well you can, but then you wouldn't be correct.
If the President was going to go after 501(c)(4)'s why would he not have made a push to shutdown the organizations that were spending all of the money? An even better question, why would the Republicans ignore treasury reports that this was going on? Why would the scandal hungry House Republicans sit on this story while at the same time flogging faux scandals like “Fast and Furious”. Generally you can trust people to act in their own interest, this is especially true for politicians.

I think everyone ignored this until now because they either didn't believe it, or didn't mind. In other words the IRS did this on their own, but no one cared.

No one likes the Tea Party. Yes, the GOP needs their votes and their excitement, but the GOP loses seats every time a Tea Party member opens their mouth. Without the Tea Party we'd almost certainly have a GOP controlled Senate. If conservative donors want to donate anonymously, then GOP groups want to make sure that those donations go to big groups that they can control. The GOP doesn't want independent grassroots Tea Party groups involved in anything other than donating and voting.

Look at how much dark money has moved through 501(c) status organizations. Liberals aren't going to rock the boat while conservative groups are being targeted, and conservatives aren't going to complain when grassroots Tea Party groups are being shut down.

Political Spending by 501(C) Organizations

OpportunityCost · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
No, it's the core of the topic. The whole IRS "scandal" stems from the code and the abuse of the code.

What's ****ing tiring is when partisan hackjobs get all upset over **** they don't understand. Fail to understand the reasons, and then ignore when their party did objectively worse **** that had no rational basis. At least the IRS had a rational reason for what it did. I haven't heard any of the "Impeach Obama" Club say a damn thing about how it was wrong for Bush to go after Greenpeace purely because a few donators didn't like them. If you want to get upset over the IRS scandal, you need to go back a decade. Or you are without question a partisan hackjob tool.

The code is still ultimately the problem. 501(c)4s shouldn't have anything to do with politics. In fact, the entire 501(c)4 really shouldn't exist.

And there lies the problem. We either get Congress to change it, or we let the IRS crack down.

And one side was stupid enough to put politically overt names on applications for a status that bars them from being primarily political. If you were the IRS agent and you got a deluge of overly politically named organizations apply for a status that lawfully prohibited their primary function of politics, wouldn't you start sorting them via names? The IRS did the same thing the Israelis do.

They should! Actually, social not so much as that alone doesn't tell us anything. Justice could go either way, particularly since many of those are often education outreach for poor to get lawyer help. Nothing really political about that. I know a few in my state with that in their name that do exactly zero lobbying. I'd advocate that the IRS profile based on names if Congress can't get its **** together.

I suspect that the Democrats didn't subscribe to the same stupidity that the TP did in putting overt political names out. Notice that the one Democrat that got denied was overtly political.

TP should have done "St. Cloud's Swim Club." That would have likely gotten past the IRS.

But they got their first scrutiny after the Pastor came out against the Iraq war. Which was well after the election. Furthermore, they should have gotten revoked for that statement. They should NOT have gotten scrutiny for being against the Iraq war. There are things that violate the political activity. Being against causing mass destruction is not necessarily one of them. Saying to the congregation, vote for X is.

So many wrongheaded ideas.

1. What something is NAMED should not affect how its treated under the law.
2. The IRS is not allowed to crack down willy nilly. It has oversight, it has regulations to adhere to, excessive repeated examination of a person or organization is exactly the kind of misuse of government we are supposedly trying to avoid--yet you want more of it.
3. Eliminating tax exempt status is a non starter, your opinion is noted and your distaste of the group as a whole is noted. IE your inherent bias...
4.

What's ****ing tiring is when partisan hackjobs get all upset over **** they don't understand. Fail to understand the reasons, and then ignore when their party did objectively worse **** that had no rational basis. At least the IRS had a rational reason for what it did. I haven't heard any of the "Impeach Obama" Club say a damn thing about how it was wrong for Bush to go after Greenpeace purely because a few donators didn't like them. If you want to get upset over the IRS scandal, you need to go back a decade. Or you are without question a partisan hackjob tool.

Trolling bull**** is trolling bull****. Not everyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand, they just dont agree. If you really want to hold out that environmental groups dont advocate into politics, you are definitely fooling yourself.
5. Coming out against a specific war rather than war itself. Gray area. One that Bush got a lot of heat over. Again BOOOOOOSHHHHHH. Cant help yourself, can you?

OpportunityCost · May 23, 2013

Mithros said:
You can't blame this on the President.. well you can, but then you wouldn't be correct.
If the President was going to go after 501(c)(4)'s why would he not have made a push to shutdown the organizations that were spending all of the money? An even better question, why would the Republicans ignore treasury reports that this was going on? Why would the scandal hungry House Republicans sit on this story while at the same time flogging faux scandals like “Fast and Furious”. Generally you can trust people to act in their own interest, this is especially true for politicians.

I think everyone ignored this until now because they either didn't believe it, or didn't mind. In other words the IRS did this on their own, but no one cared.

No one likes the Tea Party. Yes, the GOP needs their votes and their excitement, but the GOP loses seats every time a Tea Party member opens their mouth. Without the Tea Party we'd almost certainly have a GOP controlled Senate. If conservative donors want to donate anonymously, then GOP groups want to make sure that those donations go to big groups that they can control. The GOP doesn't want independent grassroots Tea Party groups involved in anything other than donating and voting.

Look at how much dark money has moved through 501(c) status organizations. Liberals aren't going to rock the boat while conservative groups are being targeted, and conservatives aren't going to complain when grassroots Tea Party groups are being shut down.

Political Spending by 501(C) Organizations

Regarding bolded, I would say no one likes congress, the current admin, or the IRS (especially the IRS) worse. No one likes the Tea Party is the kind of generalized political statement that betrays immediate bias. Further, how much someone is liked shouldnt matter at all about how they are treated by the government.

Now regarding the no one cares...no one would if the President were actually doing something to correct the abuses and remove the people that implemented them. Hes engaging in a method of operation that he always has, hes expecting the press to carry water for him and allow him to sweep it under the rug. Firing an interim director? How about cleaning house in the unit making the decisions? How about aiding in the investigation? How about not to feigning ignorance? How about saying, Im going to find out, and heads will roll? The admin and the IRS are doing the opposite.

The problem with plausible deniability is that you dont look like a leader, you look like a weasel.

MMC · May 23, 2013

Mithros said:
You can't blame this on the President.. well you can, but then you wouldn't be correct.
If the President was going to go after 501(c)(4)'s why would he not have made a push to shutdown the organizations that were spending all of the money? An even better question, why would the Republicans ignore treasury reports that this was going on? Why would the scandal hungry House Republicans sit on this story while at the same time flogging faux scandals like “Fast and Furious”. Generally you can trust people to act in their own interest, this is especially true for politicians.

I think everyone ignored this until now because they either didn't believe it, or didn't mind. In other words the IRS did this on their own, but no one cared.

No one likes the Tea Party. Yes, the GOP needs their votes and their excitement, but the GOP loses seats every time a Tea Party member opens their mouth. Without the Tea Party we'd almost certainly have a GOP controlled Senate. If conservative donors want to donate anonymously, then GOP groups want to make sure that those donations go to big groups that they can control. The GOP doesn't want independent grassroots Tea Party groups involved in anything other than donating and voting.

Look at how much dark money has moved through 501(c) status organizations. Liberals aren't going to rock the boat while conservative groups are being targeted, and conservatives aren't going to complain when grassroots Tea Party groups are being shut down.

Political Spending by 501(C) Organizations

"Oh", I think they can say Obama knew but not what was going thru his Judicial as that was other Depts within the Judicial.....True the Vote starts in 2010. Grassley and the media carried Obama firing an AG who had found his Buddy guilty of doing such with AmeriCorps. Which the Mayor of Sacramento. Kevin Johnson and good buddy of Obama's. Paid back the Money. It's Called Walpin Gate. Started 2009.

Walpin-gate

Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president’s. Mr. Obama’s move has the stench of scandal.

On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it.

The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to “communicate in writing … the reasons for any such removal.” Losing one’s “fullest confidence” hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: “The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

Yet, as Associated Press noted, “Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.” Further, “The IG found that Johnson … had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.”

Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin’s charges: Mr. Brown’s office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson’s own pocket.

Read more: EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...investigating-non-profit-education-group.html

Mithros · May 23, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
So many wrongheaded ideas.

1. What something is NAMED should not affect how its treated under the law.
2. The IRS is not allowed to crack down willy nilly. It has oversight, it has regulations to adhere to, excessive repeated examination of a person or organization is exactly the kind of misuse of government we are supposedly trying to avoid--yet you want more of it.
3. Eliminating tax exempt status is a non starter, your opinion is noted and your distaste of the group as a whole is noted. IE your inherent bias...
4. Trolling bull**** is trolling bull****. Not everyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand, they just dont agree. If you really want to hold out that environmental groups dont advocate into politics, you are definitely fooling yourself.
5. Coming out against a specific war rather than war itself. Gray area. One that Bush got a lot of heat over. Again BOOOOOOSHHHHHH. Cant help yourself, can you?

I was about to write that 1 is totally correct, but I think I've moved away from that position. Certainly it's wrong to single out only Conservative buzzwords.

But yesterday I went through 1018 groups that had been approved by the IRS in 2012, and tried to see for myself which groups were political and which weren't. I hate to say it, but the names are useful.

Here are 13 pseudorandomly selected groups from the 1018. Which would you think deserve higher levels of scrutiny?

World Chinese Bodybuilding & Fitness Association
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Non- Commissioned Officers Wives Club
Restore Americas Voice Foundation
Pelham Bay Taxpayers and Civic Association
Norwood Citizens Car Show
Michigan State Council of Senior Citizens
Lions Club of Mason City Iowa
Homeless But Not Powerless
Friends of the Jeffersonville Twp. Public Library
Disabled American Veterans Milbank-Sisseton Chapter 19
Chrome Czars Motor Club Inc.
Campaign for Justice
A Patch of Lakeshore Quilters

I think the problem is the way the names were generated. What if we did it with an algorithm? Take the names of all of the groups that were accepted, and compare them to the groups that were flagged. If a word occurs more frequently in the flagged groups, then it goes on the BOLO.

Mithros · May 23, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Regarding bolded, I would say no one likes congress, the current admin, or the IRS (especially the IRS) worse. No one likes the Tea Party is the kind of generalized political statement that betrays immediate bias. Further, how much someone is liked shouldnt matter at all about how they are treated by the government.

Now regarding the no one cares...no one would if the President were actually doing something to correct the abuses and remove the people that implemented them. Hes engaging in a method of operation that he always has, hes expecting the press to carry water for him and allow him to sweep it under the rug. Firing an interim director? How about cleaning house in the unit making the decisions? How about aiding in the investigation? How about not to feigning ignorance? How about saying, Im going to find out, and heads will roll? The admin and the IRS are doing the opposite.

The problem with plausible deniability is that you dont look like a leader, you look like a weasel.

By no one, I mean no one who had oversight of the IRS.

MMC · May 23, 2013

MMC said:
"Oh", I think they can say Obama knew but not what was going thru his Judicial as that was other Depts within the Judicial.....True the Vote starts in 2010. Grassley and the media carried Obama firing an AG who had found his Buddy guilty of doing such with AmeriCorps. Which the Mayor of Sacramento. Kevin Johnson and good buddy of Obama's. Paid back the Money. It's Called Walpin Gate. Started 2009.

Walpin-gate

Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president’s. Mr. Obama’s move has the stench of scandal.

On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he “no longer” had “the fullest confidence” in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it.

The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to “communicate in writing … the reasons for any such removal.” Losing one’s “fullest confidence” hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: “The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

Yet, as Associated Press noted, “Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.” Further, “The IG found that Johnson … had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.”

Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin’s charges: Mr. Brown’s office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson’s own pocket.

Read more: EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...investigating-non-profit-education-group.html

BTW notice......US ATTORNEY Larry Brown. Basically Team Obama and Obama himself got upset that it was done all publicly.

OpportunityCost · May 23, 2013

Mithros said:
By no one, I mean no one who had oversight of the IRS.

LOL, then **** them. If they cant administer oversight irregardless of whose ox got gored, then they shouldnt be in charge of a boy scout troop.

If they cant apply the law equally, they should absolutely be removed from their jobs.

OpportunityCost · May 23, 2013

Mithros said:
I was about to write that 1 is totally correct, but I think I've moved away from that position. Certainly it's wrong to single out only Conservative buzzwords.

But yesterday I went through 1018 groups that had been approved by the IRS in 2012, and tried to see for myself which groups were political and which weren't. I hate to say it, but the names are useful.

Here are 13 pseudorandomly selected groups from the 1018. Which would you think deserve higher levels of scrutiny?

World Chinese Bodybuilding & Fitness Association

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base Non- Commissioned Officers Wives Club

Restore Americas Voice Foundation

Pelham Bay Taxpayers and Civic Association

Norwood Citizens Car Show

Michigan State Council of Senior Citizens

Lions Club of Mason City Iowa

Homeless But Not Powerless

Friends of the Jeffersonville Twp. Public Library

Disabled American Veterans Milbank-Sisseton Chapter 19

Chrome Czars Motor Club Inc.

Campaign for Justice

A Patch of Lakeshore Quilters

I think the problem is the way the names were generated. What if we did it with an algorithm? Take the names of all of the groups that were accepted, and compare them to the groups that were flagged. If a word occurs more frequently in the flagged groups, then it goes on the BOLO.

Which ignores leaving left wing sounding groups alone while adding extra scrutiny to right wing sounding ones. Blaming the process does not remove culpability for those controlling it. We havent seen anyone acting to remove those bad decision makers and/or policy makers. I hear a lot of talk of inability to examine things objectively, Im not buying that as an excuse. If they dont have enough personnel for that how can they have enough personnel to examine all the nonsense they are asking for? They are literally asking for hundreds of pages of documents to sift through.

Mithros · May 23, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Which ignores leaving left wing sounding groups alone while adding extra scrutiny to right wing sounding ones. Blaming the process does not remove culpability for those controlling it. We havent seen anyone acting to remove those bad decision makers and/or policy makers. I hear a lot of talk of inability to examine things objectively, Im not buying that as an excuse. If they dont have enough personnel for that how can they have enough personnel to examine all the nonsense they are asking for? They are literally asking for hundreds of pages of documents to sift through.

How so? Left wing organizations that use similar keywords would similarly be targeted. Just for the hell of it I ran the numbers. Here's the list I used, (Feel free to critique since it was a fairly superficial, though I think mostly fair analysis)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...r-irs-matter-inevitable-5.html#post1061839433

The control points seem to match up fairly well. There were aprox 8800 words in all of the organizations approved, and 392 words in the organizations with political leanings. Here are the results of every word that occurred 5 or more times in the political list. (And please, I did this fast so there may be mistakes, but no intentional ones)

Word	#Occ	%Occ	%Baseline
Inc Party Tea for Patriots of Fund Coalition American the Ohio Action Freedom	31 24 23 17 13 11 7 7 7 6 6 6 5	7.91 6.12 5.87 4.34 3.32 2.81 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.28	7.21 0.53 0.26 1.11 0.25 5.47 0.36 0.32 1.18 0.90 0.25 0.34 0.34

And if we limit the number to say words that occur 5x more often in groups flagged for politics than the universe of groups at large we get:
Tea: 22 Times more likely
Patriots: 13 Times more likely
Party: 12 Times more likely
Ohio: 6 Times more likely
Coalition: 6 Times more likely
Fund: 5 Times more likely
Action: 5 Times more likely.

So here's my Bolo, "Tea, Patriots, Party, Ohio, Coalition, Fund, Action and Progress". Progress should also be one, but it wasn't pulled up by the algorithm because it's split up among Progress/Progressive/Progressnow.. etc..." But, that's me adding in my personal bias to the selection, also 912 occurred 4 times, but 4 is less than my arbitrary number of 5. (I would have had to add Country, and, a, and 912).

Addendum: here's the list from the IRS. Some of these groups were filing as 501(c)(3)'s
http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/App...Advocacy Organizations through May 9 2013.pdf

OpportunityCost · May 23, 2013

Mithros said:
How so? Left wing organizations that use similar keywords would similarly be targeted. Just for the hell of it I ran the numbers. Here's the list I used, (Feel free to critique since it was a fairly superficial, though I think mostly fair analysis)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...r-irs-matter-inevitable-5.html#post1061839433

The control points seem to match up fairly well. There were aprox 8800 words in all of the organizations approved, and 392 words in the organizations with political leanings. Here are the results of every word that occurred 5 or more times in the political list. (And please, I did this fast so there may be mistakes, but no intentional ones)

Word #Occ %Occ %Baseline
Inc
Party
Tea
for
Patriots
of
Fund
Coalition
American
the
Ohio
Action
Freedom
31
24
23
17
13
11
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
7.91
6.12
5.87
4.34
3.32
2.81
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.28
7.21
0.53
0.26
1.11
0.25
5.47
0.36
0.32
1.18
0.90
0.25
0.34
0.34

And if we limit the number to say words that occur 5x more often in groups flagged for politics than the universe of groups at large we get:
Tea: 22 Times more likely
Patriots: 13 Times more likely
Party: 12 Times more likely
Ohio: 6 Times more likely
Coalition: 6 Times more likely
Fund: 5 Times more likely
Action: 5 Times more likely.

So here's my Bolo, "Tea, Patriots, Party, Ohio, Coalition, Fund, Action and Progress". Progress should also be one, but it wasn't pulled up by the algorithm because it's split up among Progress/Progressive/Progressnow.. etc..." But, that's me adding in my personal bias to the selection, also 912 occurred 4 times, but 4 is less than my arbitrary number of 5. (I would have had to add Country, and, a, and 912).

Addendum: here's the list from the IRS. Some of these groups were filing as 501(c)(3)'s
http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/App...Advocacy Organizations through May 9 2013.pdf

One other group Im curious about, those whose applications were both not acted upon and not investigated but left in limbo.

Mithros · May 23, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
One other group Im curious about, those whose applications were both not acted upon and not investigated but left in limbo.

Agreed. Though I'm fairly sure that the IRS is prohibited from disclosing any information on any application until it's approved.

The only group I know of on that list is Crossroads GPS. They claim to have applied, but they haven't yet been approved. I don't think that Priorities USA is in limbo, but only because they never applied.

obvious Child · May 23, 2013

Dickieboy said:
In all your examples there was outrage and congress folks wrote the IG to investigate (similar to this case) which they did and found no 'egregious' IRS actions. However in this case the IG DID find 'egregious' actions which is the issue which the IRS, Congress AND the Whitehouse agrees with...

Outrage by who? Have you seen anyone one in the Impeach Obama club say a damn thing about how those were wrong? And where did you get the information that no 'egregious' IRS actions were found on the Bush era ones?

Still doesn't change my point that we have the Impeach Obama club getting angry over the IRS ensuring 501(c)4s aren't being used as PACs and saying nothing about the IRS being used for as an attack dog for nothing more than political spite.

obvious Child · May 23, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
So many wrongheaded ideas.

Too bad none of them are.

1. What something is NAMED should not affect how its treated under the law.

In a world of infinite resources where the IRS has huge staff to look at each application sure. That world does not exist. Again, the IRS did the same thing the Israelis do at their border. They profiled. What you simply do not understand is what the code actually says. Essentially you are arguing that the Israelis shouldn't profile shady Arab Males with "Death to Israel" on their shirts as they try to enter Israel. If you have an overtly political name, you SHOULD get scrutiny when you apply for a status that legally bars you from engaging in political activity as your primary activity.

The worst part about this is several Tea Party groups outright LIED to the IRS in stating they would have no political activity. Some were running ads BEFORE they submitted their applications that stated they would engage in no political activity.

2. The IRS is not allowed to crack down willy nilly. It has oversight, it has regulations to adhere to, excessive repeated examination of a person or organization is exactly the kind of misuse of government we are supposedly trying to avoid--yet you want more of it.

Using profiling is not willy nilly. You are upset that a group you like got profiled. Fundementally that is your problem. And the IRS again does not have infinite resources. And it's flat out stupid to call what they did stupid. Overtly political groups applying for a status that legally bars them from being primarily political and you think it's wrong to give extra scrutiny to those with names overtly political? So many wrongheaded ideas you have. Go talk to Israel. Tell them that their profiling is wrong. *rolls eyes*

3. Eliminating tax exempt status is a non starter, your opinion is noted and your distaste of the group as a whole is noted. IE your inherent bias.

And how does that make me wrong? Oh wait. It doesn't. You are on the losing end of this discussion. I get that you do not have any clue about the abuse going on. I get that you do not have even the slightest grasp of what the code actually says. I get that you cannot even imagine the kind of arguments that tax professionals have been making. But you think you can come in here and pretend you know more than me. Really?

[qupte]4. Trolling bull**** is trolling bull****. Not everyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand, they just dont agree. If you really want to hold out that environmental groups dont advocate into politics, you are definitely fooling yourself.[/quote]

Show me a single person other than myself who has demonstrated knowledge of the code, the history of abuse and the expertise of the subject. You won't simply because you cannot.

5. Coming out against a specific war rather than war itself. Gray area. One that Bush got a lot of heat over. Again BOOOOOOSHHHHHH. Cant help yourself, can you?

That's the best you have? You are turning into a partian hackjob.

obvious Child · May 23, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
Which ignores leaving left wing sounding groups alone while adding extra scrutiny to right wing sounding ones. Blaming the process does not remove culpability for those controlling it. We havent seen anyone acting to remove those bad decision makers and/or policy makers. I hear a lot of talk of inability to examine things objectively, Im not buying that as an excuse. If they dont have enough personnel for that how can they have enough personnel to examine all the nonsense they are asking for? They are literally asking for hundreds of pages of documents to sift through.

What the frack is a left sounding name?

3, 12 and maybe 4 and 8 are the ones that stand out. I find it funny how you think the IRS should abandon critical thinking.

Perhaps if you understood the subject, you wouldn't be making stupid statements?

obvious Child · May 23, 2013

Mithros said:
How so? Left wing organizations that use similar keywords would similarly be targeted

His problem is primarily that groups he favors got targeted. He's so offended that he's actually arguing that the IRS shouldn't practice critical thinking.

It's pretty asinine to think that the IRS should basically go about it like this:

"Well, the law explicitly states that such an organization either cannot do political activity in a material way, or as a primary function, so let's completely ignore the signs that scream that this application is heavily political."

But that is exactly what OpportunityCost is arguing for.

Porchev · May 23, 2013

This abuse of power by friends of Obama in the IRS is very disturbing. Is this next?:

The Prof · May 23, 2013

you SHOULD get scrutiny

USAToday: IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

and then

you are arguing that the Israelis shouldn't profile shady Arab Males

comparing hamas to rand paul?

THE TWILIGHT ZONE THEME - YouTube

Mithros · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
His problem is primarily that groups he favors got targeted. He's so offended that he's actually arguing that the IRS shouldn't practice critical thinking.

It's pretty asinine to think that the IRS should basically go about it like this:

"Well, the law explicitly states that such an organization either cannot do political activity in a material way, or as a primary function, so let's completely ignore the signs that scream that this application is heavily political."

But that is exactly what OpportunityCost is arguing for.

I totally agree. That said OppportunityCost is conservative, but he's not a frother. You'd probably get better milage with a softer tone.

Dickieboy · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
Outrage by who?

'Righties' were screaming for the IRS to investigate for what they believed was political comments.
'Lefties' were screaming that they weren't but merely voicing opposition (legitimately I believe) of the war.

[/QUOTE]Have you seen anyone one in the Impeach Obama club say a damn thing about how those were wrong? [/QUOTE]

No, have you? That was then, this is now.

And where did you get the information that no 'egregious' IRS actions were found on the Bush era ones?

Here:
U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
I don't have time right now to search it again but it was in Sept '05...IIRC.

Still doesn't change my point that we have the Impeach Obama club getting angry over the IRS ensuring 501(c)4s aren't being used as PACs and saying nothing about the IRS being used for as an attack dog for nothing more than political spite.

This is true. The 'Impeach Obama club' is quite over the top...right now as there is just so much we don't know. And ultimately I sincerely doubt he was involved at a level to be impeached over. Now as far as 'an attack dog' this very well may be true and potentially sourced from many different places; Tres. employees union, campaign officials, etc. but again we just don't have enough information to substantiate this...yet

apdst · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
His problem is primarily that groups he favors got targeted. He's so offended that he's actually arguing that the IRS shouldn't practice critical thinking.

It's pretty asinine to think that the IRS should basically go about it like this:

"Well, the law explicitly states that such an organization either cannot do political activity in a material way, or as a primary function, so let's completely ignore the signs that scream that this application is heavily political."

But that is exactly what OpportunityCost is arguing for.

Why would the IRS ask people about what their prayers said, if this had anythg to do with what you claim?

Jack Hays · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
What's ****ing tiring is when partisan hackjobs get all upset over **** they don't understand. Fail to understand the reasons, and then ignore when their party did objectively worse **** that had no rational basis. At least the IRS had a rational reason for what it did. I haven't heard any of the "Impeach Obama" Club say a damn thing about how it was wrong for Bush to go after Greenpeace purely because a few donators didn't like them. If you want to get upset over the IRS scandal, you need to go back a decade. Or you are without question a partisan hackjob tool.

It is your contention that the Greenpeace audit was politically motivated?:mrgreen:

Dickieboy · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
And where did you get the information that no 'egregious' IRS actions were found on the Bush era ones?

Here (I was wrong on the date):

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2005reports/200510035fr.pdf

OpportunityCost · May 23, 2013

obvious Child said:
In a world of infinite resources where the IRS has huge staff to look at each application sure. That world does not exist. Again, the IRS did the same thing the Israelis do at their border. They profiled.

Except we dont ALLOW profiling in our legal system.

What you simply do not understand is what the code actually says. Essentially you are arguing that the Israelis shouldn't profile shady Arab Males with "Death to Israel" on their shirts as they try to enter Israel. If you have an overtly political name, you SHOULD get scrutiny when you apply for a status that legally bars you from engaging in political activity as your primary activity.The worst part about this is several Tea Party groups outright LIED to the IRS in stating they would have no political activity. Some were running ads BEFORE they submitted their applications that stated they would engage in no political activity.

Except Liberal groups did the same thing and had few to no problems. IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold
ALL poltical activity should be examined or none of it should.

Using profiling is not willy nilly. You are upset that a group you like got profiled. Fundementally that is your problem. And the IRS again does not have infinite resources. And it's flat out stupid to call what they did stupid. Overtly political groups applying for a status that legally bars them from being primarily political and you think it's wrong to give extra scrutiny to those with names overtly political? So many wrongheaded ideas you have. Go talk to Israel. Tell them that their profiling is wrong. *rolls eyes*

Once again you dont seem to understand we do not allow profiling in our legal system. My problem is not with who was profiled but that it occurred at all.

And how does that make me wrong? Oh wait. It doesn't. You are on the losing end of this discussion. I get that you do not have any clue about the abuse going on. I get that you do not have even the slightest grasp of what the code actually says. I get that you cannot even imagine the kind of arguments that tax professionals have been making. But you think you can come in here and pretend you know more than me. Really?

No, thats your schtick. Check the arrogance, its annoying.

4. Trolling bull**** is trolling bull****. Not everyone that disagrees with you doesnt understand, they just dont agree. If you really want to hold out that environmental groups dont advocate into politics, you are definitely fooling yourself.

Show me a single person other than myself who has demonstrated knowledge of the code, the history of abuse and the expertise of the subject. You won't simply because you cannot.

That's the best you have? You are turning into a partian hackjob.

This isnt about the regulatory code anymore, its about political afiliation being used by the government as a basis for regulatory abuse.

IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

Mithros

OpportunityCost

OpportunityCost

MMC

Mithros

Mithros

MMC

OpportunityCost

OpportunityCost

Mithros

OpportunityCost

Mithros

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Porchev

The Prof

Mithros

Dickieboy

apdst

Jack Hays

Traveler

Dickieboy

OpportunityCost