• 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!

Acting IRS commissioner resigns in wake of agency scandal

You are incorrect. Some groups are eligible for a tax exemption, but purely political groups are not.

IMHO, charitable donations to Limbaugh University should be tax-exempt. Conservatives shouldn't be punished twice for the same mistake :lol:
 
So where's the pie chart showing what percentage of the state's debt comprises pension spending?

Pretty silly to say that pension funds have "decimated" state coffers if they don't comprise the bulk of the debt, eh? :rolleyes:

But we'll make it easy for you since you managed to actually cite something at all (a major 1st for a conservative!)--here's actual figures from the State of California's Governor's 2013 - 2014 Budget. . .

http://www.dof.ca.gov/documents/FullBudgetSummary_web2013.pdf

Now look at the debt chart (Fig. INT-03) showing spending needed to cover current debt in the state at the end 2013. Deferred payments to CalPERS (public employee pension system for CA) will be $ 0.4 billion, whereas total payment to service debt in 2013 will be $27.8 billion.

So 0.4/28.8 = 0.013 = 1.3%

An obligation comprising 1.3% of total debt payments isn't exactly the one breaking the bank, is it ? ?



Since when do we get in troubling for humiliating righties? is that a new forum rule?
046.gif


:doh

I'd suggest bankruptcy is a strong indicator of a decimation of a cities finances.

Please move along, you're embarrassing yourself...
 
I've noticed they go away quickly when they've been busted !!:mrgreen:

Hi Ocean & Hi Polgara hope alls well just reading posts.:2wave:

Good afternoon to you, penn1954! :2wave:

Ocean has been showing us how easy it is to say things in smilies! :lamo: Hope you're enjoying your day!
 
I think some people are 'high' on scandal fumes.
 
Here's another conservative group targeted.


IRS Targeted Conservative Hispanic Outreach Group


by Brandon Darby
16 May 2013

The IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups went even further than has been revealed. A conservative Hispanic outreach group that educates Spanish-speaking and English-speaking Hispanic communities on the US Constitution was also targeted after applying for 501(c3) status, according to the group’s founder and president, Adryana Boyne.
Read more:
IRS Targeted Conservative Hispanic Outreach Group

Hmm, I wonder how many Progressive Left wing Hispanic Outreach groups were targeted during the same period? Zero?
 
Here's another conservative group targeted.


IRS Targeted Conservative Hispanic Outreach Group


by Brandon Darby
16 May 2013

The IRS’s targeting of Tea Party groups went even further than has been revealed. A conservative Hispanic outreach group that educates Spanish-speaking and English-speaking Hispanic communities on the US Constitution was also targeted after applying for 501(c3) status, according to the group’s founder and president, Adryana Boyne.
Read more:
IRS Targeted Conservative Hispanic Outreach Group

Hmm, I wonder how many Progressive Left wing Hispanic Outreach groups were targeted during the same period? Zero?

Will someone please pay attention to me and respond to my questions. Why are groups whose SOLE FOCUS is political get government welfare? From your own link:

Though Boyne’s group only focused on educating Hispanic communities on the US Constitution and on conservative social and economic values, she said her group was treated unfairly.

Yes, indoctrinating Hispanics into Republican ideology is political.
 
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
what the IG has presented is nothing more than piss poor management - and laws/regulations that are other than clear and specific

to be recognized as tax exempt under internal revenue code 501 (c) (4) an applicant organization MUST be PRIMARILY engaged in the promotion of social welfare. social welfare does NOT include 'political campaign intervention'.

now, as the assigned specialist determining whether the applicant was primarily engaged in social work in contrast to political campaign intervention, what is the benchmark which allows you to distinguish between the two?
I'm guessing ThinkProgress would be a good benchmark.

for those applications which gave no indication of political campaign intervention as part of their organization's activities, they were processed and approved on the merits of the application data received. they were the easy ones.the IG says a couple should have been more thoroughly evaluated, but otherwise they were routine actions

but those applications from organizations whose information provided an indication they were involved in political campaign intervention, now the test was to determine how much political campaign intervention was too much to allow them to be found tax exempt, when compared to how much social welfare promotion they engaged in

and this was the crux of the problem. those non-routine applications were sorted out and not acted upon because the specialists were awaiting direction from various other departments of the IRS, especially including the technical unit, rulings and agreements section, operations unit, quality assurance unit, and general counsel's office
it was a management cluster****, which will be obvious to those who read the timeline
the unit managers were frequently changed. no one seemed to be able to give definition to the need for benchmarking the acceptable level of political campaign intervention and especially how to measure it. so the managers did nothing. and the specialists, who could not process the application consistent with the regulations until the standard operating procedures were put in place, did not process the non-routine applications while awaiting the benchmarking to be established
Again, ThinkProgress is a fair benchmark.

now, during this span, the staff began looking for ways to distinguish the routine submissions from the non-routine applications. here is where they identified applicant organization names as being indicative of non-routine submissions where there was expected to be a degree of political campaign intervention. which is why organizations self identified as tea party, patriots, progressive, and the like were flagged for a higher level of scrutiny. which added scrutiny could only occur once the benchmarking was established

again. lots of management incompetence. nothing found in the way of partisan bias
I am not aware of any organizations self identified as progressive which received a higher level of scrutiny, which would indicate partisan bias, unless it can be proved that every single one of the others had something other than tea party or patriots associated with the organization.
read the report and see for yourself
At this point, with all the revelations coming on a nearly daily basis, with some of the other independent reports under investigation, I think I'll wait and see for myself, and not put too much faith in the administration investigating itself.
 
Why? Because he wasn't fired?

Hello, humbolt. :2wave:

Nobody gets fired these days. They are either promoted, reassigned, or permitted to retire with full benefits! I mean, everyone makes a little mistake now and then, and fair is fair! Club memberships are not cheap, you know! :golf:
 
:doh

I'd suggest bankruptcy is a strong indicator of a decimation of a cities finances.

Explain to us how pension fund spending could be the major factor in this bankruptcy (i. e. decimation) if it only accounts for 1.3% debt spending.

Should I provide your source again, or can you find him yourself?

Please move along, you're embarrassing yourself...

Nothing embarrassing about humiliating limbaugh-addicted righties. Actually, it's too easy :) .
 
Last edited:
Good afternoon to you, penn1954! :2wave:

Ocean has been showing us how easy it is to say things in smilies! :lamo: Hope you're enjoying your day!

He knows how to make smileys but he's still having trouble with budget citations and numbers. The latter is a major challenge for his people.
 
Comic Sans overload... Arial or Helvetica is better for reading.


Conservative groups are not under attack. As far as I know, those with overtly political names were given extra scrutiny when applying for tax exemptions.


You realize in 2010 Max Baucus wrote letters the IRS and asked them to look into these political PAC groups.

Conservative PAC groups.

You realize in 2012 Chuck Schumer along with 6 other Democrats including Al Franken wrote a similar letter to the IRS asking them to investigate Conservative PAC groups.

So your assertion that Conservatives were not targeted is really just your imagination.

As you can't back up your claims with anything biut your own, thoughtless opinion.
 
Hello, humbolt. :2wave:

Nobody gets fired these days. They are either promoted, reassigned, or permitted to retire with full benefits! I mean, everyone makes a little mistake now and then, and fair is fair! Club memberships are not cheap, you know! :golf:
Oh, you know it, and showing up at the club in anything less than a 5 or 7 series BMW is so gauche. Don't we all wish we could be "resigned" as the head of the IRS. The funniest thing here is that we have people defending as understandable what the IRS has already admitted, replete with an apology for doing the very thing claimed here not to have been done.
 
You realize in 2010 Max Baucus wrote letters the IRS and asked them to look into these political PAC groups.

Conservative PAC groups.

You realize in 2012 Chuck Schumer along with 6 other Democrats including Al Franken wrote a similar letter to the IRS asking them to investigate Conservative PAC groups.

So your assertion that Conservatives were not targeted is really just your imagination.

As you can't back up your claims with anything biut your own, thoughtless opinion.

I said they're not under attack, not that they haven't been targeted. Of course PAC groups should be targeted.
 
Oh, you know it, and showing up at the club in anything less than a 5 or 7 series BMW is so gauche. Don't we all wish we could be "resigned" as the head of the IRS. The funniest thing here is that we have people defending as understandable what the IRS has already admitted, replete with an apology for doing the very thing claimed here not to have been done.

Where did I read recently that it has been shown that only liberals are able to hold two diametrically opposing thoughts simultaneously, and depending on which Party is being discussed at the moment is the determining factor in which thought is expressed? The old "it's okay when we do it" syndrome. I will have to find that article. It sure cleared things up for me! :eek:
 
Planned Parenthood?

Wrong answer.

Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA is a non-profit organization providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization which lobbies for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care in the United States.
Planned Parenthood is the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services, including cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and abortion.[3][4][5] Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served.[6][7][8]
The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York, where Margaret Sanger opened the country's first birth-control clinic. Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942 became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Since then, Planned Parenthood has grown to have over 820 clinic locations in the U.S., with a total budget of US $1 billion. PPFA provides an array of services to over three million people in the United States, and supports services for over one million clients outside the United States.

Please list the public services and benefits this pro-life organization provides.
 
I said they're not under attack, not that they haven't been targeted. Of course PAC groups should be targeted.
We grant the IRS with enormous power to collect the revenue necessary for the running of our country.
At the very least we should expect them to treat everyone with the same level of unpleasantness.
The IRS has admitted to this unequal treatment, the extent is still unclear.
 
Try reading up on what the PPAF actually does - it has tax exempt status.

I have read up on it. PPAF is allowed to engage in political activity and claim tax exempt status. If that was their primary purpose, they would not be eligible.
 
Explain to us how pension fund spending could be the major factor in this bankruptcy (i. e. decimation) if it only accounts for 1.3% debt spending.

Should I provide your source again, or can you find him yourself?



Nothing embarrassing about humiliating limbaugh-addicted righties. Actually, it's too easy :) .


Normally I ignore those incapable of thoughtful dialog. You're certainly going to be up near the top.

Why are you putting out BS from the liberal/progressive Jerry Brown, rather than actual facts? You're posting a proposed budget, and trying to sell it as fact?

Here are some facts you appear proud to be ignorant about.

California Pension Liabilities Raise Debt Uncertainty

The report examined multiple sectors of government spending, including the ‘wall of debt’ (coined by Governor Jerry Brown), unemployment insurance, and various obligation and revenue bonds. When these factors are added up, the state government’s debt is an estimated $132.6 billion.

Additional analysis shows California’s K-12 public schools hold about $49.7 billion in bond debt, city governments hold $68.1 billion, and county governments hold $22.1 billion. When taken together along with California’s other state and local government entities, debts reached over $850 billion. Following additional adjustments, which accounted for more conservative growth, outstanding debt reached into the trillions.

The culprit cited by CPPC is the state’s ballooning pension liabilities. The key lynchpin here being the estimated investment return rate. Historically, an average annual return of 7.5 percent would be considered appropriate, yet a much more conservative rate of 5.5 percent or lower is considered by CPPC to be much more accurate.


Here is a link to the Public Employee Union legislation Calpers got the Democrats to enslave California with.

David Crane: California's Pension Fiasco and the Great Nondisclosure of 1999 - WSJ.com

Now, do you plan to comment on the various bankrupt cities that were cited in the links I provided, or do you plan add to the mountain of foolishness you've been posting?
 
I have read up on it. PPAF is allowed to engage in political activity and claim tax exempt status. If that was their primary purpose, they would not be eligible.

Lobbying for their cause IS their primary purpose. That's political activity.
 
The guy in charge, if he knew what was going on, should be first to go. If he didn't know what was going on, he should still be the first to go for not knowing what's happening under his nose.

Frankly, I hope lots of heads roll here. Unlike too many of our current politically motivated "scandals", this is a REAL scandal that should infuriate every single American, regardless of their political views.

The problem is, he wasn't in charge at the time this was going on, his predecessor was. He's just a sacrificial lamb, nothing more.
 
Where did I read recently that it has been shown that only liberals are able to hold two diametrically opposing thoughts simultaneously, and depending on which Party is being discussed at the moment is the determining factor in which thought is expressed? The old "it's okay when we do it" syndrome. I will have to find that article. It sure cleared things up for me! :eek:
That's funny. I read the same thing, and I too can't remember where I read it. Great minds deteriorate at the same rate, don't cha think?
 
Back
Top Bottom