• 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 officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

No, no, why would you hold back?

Because I do not go full @sshat on new people.

Please tell us why Obama is wrong on this, no problems at IRS, just keep on keepin' on.

Would help if you actually represented my points honestly. Instead of being a liar.

Notice what I actually argued. That what the IRS did wrong was failing to put more scrutiny on liberal groups. Not that they went hard on Conservative groups.

Business as usual because there are no abuses or wrong doing.

So tax experts are wrong in that the 501(c)4 code is being abused? Tax partners with decades of experience are wrong? Really? How badly do you want to lose this argument?

And go ahead and keep posting irrelevant stuff. Oh, and please with the "warnings". "This is your only warning." Try not to be so full of yourself, it is a bit laughable.

Fact are irrelevant to you?

Notice that I'm the only one here actually discussing the code. Why is that?

Notice, you will be treated harshly from now on.
 
They were still able to act as a non-profit group while waiting the approval of the IRS.

501(c)4 is voluntary. Filing is a butt cover to ensure that the IRS doesn't come after you years later for non-compliance. At most, you'd have a single year of non-compliance if you file. Not filing could result in serious charges with years of violation.
 
Yet you are still wallowing in Obama worship defending the IRS. Nothing more needs to be said

Are you ever capable of posting without blatant lies?

You ignore the mountains of evidence that disprove your claim and think because 1 Democrat org was denied a claim for whatever reason, that this somehow absolves harassment and intimidation of private citizens based upon their political views.

And what evidence is that? The evidence you never posted?

This is why Big Government liberalism needs to be opposed. People like you never think it's big enough and when that power is abused and Government is used by liberals to harass and intimidate, people like you fall into goosestep behind it defending it.

I did state you'd fail to address the actual code, Citizen's United and the abuse.

What did you do? You failed to address the actual code, Citizen's United and the abuse.

You are purely looking for cheap shots. Rather then addressing the actual issues. Typical Partian Vomit from Bronson.
 
The issue isn't the tax exempt status.

You can tell who understands the topic and who doesn't by looking at what they discuss. The partisan hackjobs never discuss the abuse of the tax code, the code itself or the reason for PACs. Those who do address it get flak for actually looking at the core of the subject
 
The commisioner testified that he was pretty sure that there was a significant increase. Maybe there wasn't? Maybe the numbers are wrong? Unsure..

This chart doesn't tell us much.

If the majority of that 1,700+ were from political groups, that is an issue.

It's one thing to get an application for "St. Cloud Swim Club" and another from "Tea Party of America For Republicans." Obviously the first one is going to get a heck of a lot less scrutiny then the first. If the ratio of political to non-political went massively skewed towards political, then the IRS is going to be overwhelmed. "St. Cloud Swim Club" should take 10 minutes to approve. An overtly political group applying for an explicitly non-political status will take longer.
 
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the Pasadena Church for being against the Iraq war?
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the Greenpeace because several Bush Donors didn't like Greenpeace?
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the NAACP because several Bush Donors didn't like Greenpeace?

At least here, there is ACTUAL OBJECTIVE REASONS to go after overtly politically named groups applying for status that is prohibited from primarily engaging in political activity.

None of you stand a chance here against me. Get out of the thread before I make an even bigger mockery of you.
 
Yes and no. It's politically motivated because the 501(c)4 section explicitly prohibits the organization from being primarily political. When idiot groups have overtly political names, they should get more scrutiny as they are already putting up a big red flag that they are potentially violating the 501(c)4 laws.

The IRS did the same thing the IDF does at its borders and ports. People who look suspicious get more scrutiny. Putting an overtly political name on an application for a status that explicitly prohibits primary political activity should get you more scrutiny.

Well, I would go with the impression that Obama knew all along. Considering he fired an IG who was investigating his Buddy. Once they Connect Obama to Walpin. He wont be able to say he didn't know anything. IMO that is. Well some others too.
 
Well, I would go with the impression that Obama knew all along. Considering he fired an IG who was investigating his Buddy. Once they Connect Obama to Walpin. He wont be able to say he didn't know anything. IMO that is. Well some others too.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Obama knew everything about what the IRS was doing. President doesn't have all of the time in the world to know what every department is doing. I find it incredibly amusing that people who bash the Federal government as a giant monstrosity (which it is) find it easy to think that the President knows everything about every part of government and what they're doing. Hello, you just argued the government is so huge, but then argue the most busy man on the planet has time to know what every department is doing. Makes no sense.

The same people who defended Bush against the idiotic leftist claims that Bush knew everything are now making the same arguments against Obama. Seems some partisans aren't as different as they'd like to believe.

Sure the IG issue looks dirty, but could be an issue of cleaning house from prior Presidential appointments. Still bad, but considering that Obama basically failed to stop the investigation and his friend did pay it back, kind of a crappy job at a political firing.
 
just 2 days before planting that questioner at the aba convention in dc, ms lerner outright lied to democrats on the house oversight committee

She said she hadn't revealed the information sooner, because she was never asked. But just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner was specifically asked about the investigation.

Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., asked her if she could "comment briefly on the status on the IRS investigation into these political not-for-profits."

She said: "Well there's a questionnaire that began this discussion and there's also a questionnaire out there that is seeking info from 501 c3,4,5 organizations."

Crowley called her answer evasive.

"The bottom line is you cannot lie to Congress, and you cannot be evasive, you cannot try to mislead Congress," he said.

ms lerner, it turns out, has quite a colorful past, and the pastels have remained unchanged

In the 1990's, Lerner also served as chief of enforcement at the Federal Elections Commission.

Under her direction, the FEC undertook the largest enforcement action in its history -- suing the Christian Coalition for violating campaign laws. The Christian Coalition won, but in one deposition, FEC lawyers asked a defendant if televangelist Pat Robertson prayed for him.

Lerner is represented by lawyer William W. Taylor, who is noted for winning a dismissal of all charges against former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn in a high-profile sexual assault case.

IRS official who refused to testify facing more scrutiny over scandal, past | Fox News

it's people like lois lerner and douglas shulman and steven miller and cindy thomas and colleen kelley and neal wolin and barack hussein obama that make appointments of special prosecutors inevitable

ask congressman lynch from south boston

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/joe-sch...ecutor-and-hell-pay-if-irs-keeps-stonewalling

seeya at the hearings, haters
 
I see almost no one discussing PACs, Citizens' United, the actual Code and tax experts for years saying it's being abused.

Looks like a section of the community really doesn't give a **** about what was actually going on and why. They're just here to bash.

And their complete and absolute silence on the Bush administration's objectively worse abuses via the IRS is quite telling.
 
They searched out groups who had names with "Tea Party", "Patriots", "9/12", etc... in it. Gee, you think there was bias? I guess the head of the IRS doesn't agree with you, that they didn't go far enough, he just resigned.

So profiling is bad when we do it to groups you like but it's okay against Muslims?

Tell me, why shouldn't the IRS profile overtly political names when they are applying for a tax section that explicitly bars political activity as a primary function? Do you think that the Israelis shouldn't profile shifty Arab males carrying big suitcases who have Jihad written on their shirts? Do you think that Cops in Camden NY shouldn't profile African Americans wearing gang colors and throwing gang signs?

Don't say I didn't warn you. Because I did.
 
Even though 132 members of Congress sent former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman letters about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, Shulman reiterated Wednesday that he did not have the full story until the inspector general’s report came out.

holly paz put the lie to that claim

Internal IRS probe cited same problems with approach to conservative groups in May 2012, House aide says

“In the two years that this targeting was taking place, did any member of Congress contact you? Write you? About this particular subject? Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan asked during a House Oversight hearing. “Did you get letters from Congress?”

Jordan explained that based on documents from the IRS, 132 different members of Congress contacted Shulman over the two year period the IRS was targeting conservative groups about the tax exemption issue.

Jordan pointed out to Shulman that there had been 42 news stories about potential IRS targeting in that two-year time frame as well.

“So here is what everyone wants to know: You’ve got 132 members of the United States Congress contacting you about this issue, 42 news stories about this issue in the time period in question, and you never checked it out?. You never researched it? I mean, are you sure you’re being square with us today, Mr. Shulman?”

“I am absolutely telling you the truth today,” Shulman said.

Jordan also delved into the number of times Shulman visited the White House.

One hundred and eighteen times you were at the White House, 132 Members of Congress contact you about this information, 42 major news stories about this very subject and you told Congress a year ago, ‘I can give you assurances nothing is going on, everything is wonderful, we’re not targeting conservative groups,’” Jordan said. “That is why the American people are like, ‘This is unbelievable.’”

Shulman never looked into IRS targeting, 132 congressmen asked | The Daily Caller

gallup: 74% say "the irs issue is a serious matter that needs to be investigated," 56% feel that way strongly

including 62% of dems and 76% of independents

Gallup: Americans find IRS and Benghazi serious matters that need investigation

why can't obama state flatly when he knew about what was going on at his irs for 2 years?

how could his chief of staff be aware while the president remains ignorant?

the irs' internal investigation conducted by ms marks, independent of tigta, found "substantial bias" against tea and other conservative groups and made a "presentation" to commissioner miller on may 3, 2012---what's up with that?

why did shulman and miller lie to congress repeatedly?

why did ms lerner take the fifth?

and why DID the irs single out for extremely rigorous scrutiny the people whom the president most pointedly despises?

stay tuned
 
That doesn't necessarily mean that Obama knew everything about what the IRS was doing. President doesn't have all of the time in the world to know what every department is doing. I find it incredibly amusing that people who bash the Federal government as a giant monstrosity (which it is) find it easy to think that the President knows everything about every part of government and what they're doing. Hello, you just argued the government is so huge, but then argue the most busy man on the planet has time to know what every department is doing. Makes no sense.

The same people who defended Bush against the idiotic leftist claims that Bush knew everything are now making the same arguments against Obama. Seems some partisans aren't as different as they'd like to believe.

Sure the IG issue looks dirty, but could be an issue of cleaning house from prior Presidential appointments. Still bad, but considering that Obama basically failed to stop the investigation and his friend did pay it back, kind of a crappy job at a political firing.

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.
 
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.

Well, not all Republicans. Gates stuck around. :)

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.

The problem with this is it make Obama look stupid. He not only fails to save his friend, but he also makes it look like a politically motivated firing. At the point he entered, it was already too late. Is Obama really that dumb as to get involved in something he likely knows he can't change? I don't know.

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.

But at the same time, entering that late means he can't get anything decent out of this deal. He either enters early and gets a political election fight, or he enters late, fails to do anything useful and gets a smear. This is lose lose. Best thing to do would be to stay out. But merely being aware of his friend being investigated doesn't mean he knows what the rest of the IRS is up to. Even after the Republican cuts, it's still large.

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.

Possibly. That's a reasonable assumption.

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.

Well, didn't Mason and Washington both warn against having political parties?
 
Well, not all Republicans. Gates stuck around. :)



The problem with this is it make Obama look stupid. He not only fails to save his friend, but he also makes it look like a politically motivated firing. At the point he entered, it was already too late. Is Obama really that dumb as to get involved in something he likely knows he can't change? I don't know.



But at the same time, entering that late means he can't get anything decent out of this deal. He either enters early and gets a political election fight, or he enters late, fails to do anything useful and gets a smear. This is lose lose. Best thing to do would be to stay out. But merely being aware of his friend being investigated doesn't mean he knows what the rest of the IRS is up to. Even after the Republican cuts, it's still large.



Possibly. That's a reasonable assumption.



Well, didn't Mason and Washington both warn against having political parties?

Yeah Gates, Salazar, LaHood, Bernanke, Just to name a few.

Truthfully.....I agree, he should have stayed out of it completely. As now they know that they can't get Past him firing an IG investing thru the IRS over the same issue. Meaning Jarrett and the rest.

Course Axelrod and a couple of others did try to use the excuse of Government being so big. Which doesn't do much good for the Democrats and their Ideology of Expanding Government. To admit things are so big now. Would just mean that all the Demos have worked for on this front was always wrong from the get go. Not only in substance but from their Premise from the Beginning.

Gotta Give Ole George his props.....he saw the Writing on the Wall. Before the Ink on the Paper. ;)
 
I see almost no one discussing PACs, Citizens' United, the actual Code and tax experts for years saying it's being abused.

Looks like a section of the community really doesn't give a **** about what was actually going on and why. They're just here to bash.

And their complete and absolute silence on the Bush administration's objectively worse abuses via the IRS is quite telling.

Thats because its off topic. Discuss this topic. It gets tiresome that every abuse is met with Booooossssshhh. The other guy did it too is not a defense, its a lack of one.

The code as you like to put it, was circumvented by special scrutiny to groups with key words---a policy that was later change. Thats already in writing in the IG report regarding the IRS. It was later changed, if its just fine, why was it changed?

The current law is what it is. All a group is required to do is be within the law. Further, there doesnt seem to be a lot of effort in Washington to change it. The problem became that only one side of the political spectrum got extra scrutiny based upon naming. What would happen if social or justice were included in those buzz words for flagging? Thats right, liberals would be out for blood. I guess you are right, a section doesnt give a crap about what was going on and why.....

FYI, the Pasadena church said JC would endorse Gore over Bush in a sermon. Totally apolitical dontchaknow.
 
Thats because its off topic.

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

Discuss this topic. It gets tiresome that every abuse is met with Booooossssshhh. The other guy did it too is not a defense, its a lack of one.

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 as you like to put it, was circumvented by special scrutiny to groups with key words---a policy that was later change.

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.

The current law is what it is. All a group is required to do is be within the law. Further, there doesnt seem to be a lot of effort in Washington to change it.

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

The problem became that only one side of the political spectrum got extra scrutiny based upon naming.

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.

What would happen if social or justice were included in those buzz words for flagging?

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.

Thats right, liberals would be out for blood. I guess you are right, a section doesnt give a crap about what was going on and why.

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.

FYI, the Pasadena church said JC would endorse Gore over Bush in a sermon. Totally apolitical dontchaknow.

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.
 
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the Pasadena Church for being against the Iraq war?
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the Greenpeace because several Bush Donors didn't like Greenpeace?
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the NAACP because several Bush Donors didn't like Greenpeace?

At least here, there is ACTUAL OBJECTIVE REASONS to go after overtly politically named groups applying for status that is prohibited from primarily engaging in political activity.

None of you stand a chance here against me. Get out of the thread before I make an even bigger mockery of you.

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...
 
one side was stupid enough to put politically overt names on applications

IRS scandal hearing: Best moments - David Nather - POLITICO.com

Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman dropped this bit of advice during his testimony: targeted conservative groups could have just not applied for tax-exempt status at all.

All they had to do, Shulman told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was act like they were already a 501(c)(4) and then file their tax return that way.
“There’s no need to go through the application process,” Shulman said in an exchange with Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). “You can start up operations as a 501(c)(4) and file your return at the end of the year.”

lynch responded:

Dem: There Will be Special Prosecutor and 'Hell to Pay' If IRS Keeps Stonewalling | CNS News



 
Heres a random question. Do any conservatives here care who donates to liberal 501c4s, such that that information should be public? For example, League of Conservation Voters, who got donations of over 10 million dollars, and spent 4 million supporting democrats. Does anyone conservative here think who gave them money should be public?
 
"There is a cancer on the presidencey".
 
Back
Top Bottom