• 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!

Republicans Expand I.R.S. Inquiry, With Eye on White House

Several flaws in this. 1st: The Senate would never impeach obama. 2nd: Joe biden would then take over as President (SCARY) 3rd: is there really a problem with looking more closely at those who oppose taxes ( or at least more taxes). they are the ones most likely not to be paying. I certainly don't condone it, but in all reality there is nothing really criminal there.

You probably voted for him as VP. That's makes that fact that you can vote scary.
 
heads are gonna roll and people are going to go to prison over this.

You must mean the tax dodgers that the IRS found in their investigations ...right?
I always said if you want to find a tax evader there is no better place to look than the TEA Party and their supporters.
 
You must mean the tax dodgers that the IRS found in their investigations ...right?
I always said if you want to find a tax evader there is no better place to look than the TEA Party and their supporters.

How many actual tax dodgers were found in the IRS's sweep?

And, how is asking someone about their prayer habits going to expose tax evasion?
 
I've always believed that Rock can bring us together in all areas, such as politics.
On these inquiries, I tend to agree with Clinton's bald man married to Matalin. CRS--
I see nothing ever being accomplished again without 60 in the Senate.
You couldn't have a worse messenger than Issa.

Issa has done a fine job. Fact that Dems hate him is irrelevant.:cool:
 
But, your donors can't make tax deductable donations, without you being a credentialed NFP, which will hurt your donations big time. Hence, part of the reason that Conservative NFP's were given the run-around.

It was a partisan plot to defund Conservative politicing.

501(c)(4)'s are NFP's, but donations to 501(c)(4)'s are not tax deductible. The only reason why conservative groups did not self declare is that didn't want to risk being denied 501(c)(4) status after they filed. Had that happened, they would have been forced to reveal their donors, which was the sole purpose of many of these organizations.

Conservative groups made up only a third of the targeted groups.
 
How many actual tax dodgers were found in the IRS's sweep?

And, how is asking someone about their prayer habits going to expose tax evasion?
None. These cases weren't about tax evasion. They were about using the guise of a social welfare organization to shield donors from campaign finance disclosure laws.

American Crossroads is a tax exempt 527 Super PAC. Crossroads GPS is a “social welfare” 501(c)(4). The only difference between the two is that donations to American Crossroads are public, while donations to Crossroads GPS are not.
 
You must mean the tax dodgers that the IRS found in their investigations ...right?
I always said if you want to find a tax evader there is no better place to look than the TEA Party and their supporters.

Are you for real, you sound like you would love to working for the IRS and be the ring leader of Obama's targeting and managing his hit list.

As for tax evaders half of Obama's cabinet were tax dodgers. Timothy Geithner mean anything to you. And what is he, oh yeah "Head of the Treasury" under Obama.
 
You must mean the tax dodgers that the IRS found in their investigations ...right?
I always said if you want to find a tax evader there is no better place to look than the TEA Party and their supporters.

And you've "always said" this based on what evidence?:waiting:
 
...
Conservative groups made up only a third of the targeted groups.

I've seen that also (IG report I think) but who/what are the other two-thirds? Isn't their 'description' relatedly important to the discussion? I can only presume that there are no progressive/liberal organizations due to it not being used as a defense of the IRS activities which if it were the case would be quite legitimate.
 
I've seen that also (IG report I think) but who/what are the other two-thirds? Isn't their 'description' relatedly important to the discussion? I can only presume that there are no progressive/liberal organizations due to it not being used as a defense of the IRS activities which if it were the case would be quite legitimate.

Are you basing that on anything? These were groups singled out for excessive political activity. 1/3 of those groups signaled out for unessasary poltiical activity were conservative groups. The other two thirds weren't. What does that make them? I don't know, but I'd guess that there were more than a few liberal groups in there.
 
I've seen that also (IG report I think) but who/what are the other two-thirds? Isn't their 'description' relatedly important to the discussion? I can only presume that there are no progressive/liberal organizations due to it not being used as a defense of the IRS activities which if it were the case would be quite legitimate.

Correct. The point is not that conservatives were exclusively targeted, but that they were disproportionately targeted. Liberals, meanwhile, got an almost universal free pass. Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post published a hilarious send-up of this on 17 May.:mrgreen:

ComPost - Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/
Next to normal — daily madness and the DSM-5. What's in a name? By Alexandra Petri May 17, 2013. Comments. Share: More ». Facebook · Twitter · Reddit ...
 
Last edited:
Correct. The point is not that conservatives were exclusively targeted, but that they were disproportionately targeted. Liberals, meanwhile, got an almost universal free pass. Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post published a hilarious send-up of this on 17 May.:mrgreen:

There is no evidence to support this assertion. It may be true, but the OIG report went out of its way to indicate that there doesn't appear to be an indication of political bias.

What we know is that the there were 298 groups targeted for political scrutiny. 201 were correctly targeted, 91 were targeted but should not have been and 144 weren't targeted but should have been.

Also, we know that 1/3 of the 298 groups were conservative groups. You can't say there was bias until you know the number of conservative groups which should have been targeted and the number of conservative groups which were incorrectly targeted..
 
Are you basing that on anything? ...

No, as stated mere presumption. But IF there was a comparative number of 'progressive/liberal' biased organizations where scrutiny was asserted wouldn't the IG have logically reported that there was no 'lean' to the scrutiny?
 
there doesn't appear to be an indication of political bias

McCaskill Calls For Firing Of All Involved In IRS Targeting Scandal « CBS St. Louis

“I’m mad. It is un-American, it is wrong, and we have to make sure that this gets fixed,” Missouri’s senior senator said. “There’s a reason Lady Justice wears a blindfold in America. That is because in America, we don’t apply the law based on who you are, who you know, or what you believe. We apply the law equally.”

McCaskill went on to say that the targeting of one group based on political beliefs “infuriates” her.

“We should not only fire the head of the IRS, which has occurred, but we’ve got to go down the line and find every single person who had anything to do with this and make sure that they are removed from the IRS and the word goes out that this is unacceptable,” she said. “It is un-American, it is wrong, and it cannot occur again.”

McCaskill concluded by saying many groups claim to be charities while doing political work and that it is a problem which needs to be fixed “but not in a way that highlights one belief over another.”

why can't barack obama state unequivocally he didn't know what was going on at his irs for 2 years?

Though the White House counsel’s office was informed of the IRS probe in late April, Obama has insisted that he only learned about the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups through media reports last Friday. But he wouldn’t say definitively that the White House was unaware of the targeting before then.

Obama pushes back on IRS, AP, Benghazi - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

nyt is more declarative: "the obama administration knew about the irs scandal 5 months before the election"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/us/politics/irs-scandal-congressional-hearings.html?hp&_r=4&

you can debate back and forth---for a year---but its the special prosecutor who's gonna have the say

in the meantime, america can reflect
 
You probably voted for him as VP. That's makes that fact that you can vote scary.
Very quick to assume. I voted for Gary Johnson/ Jim Gray.
 
Why does the title have Republicans in it when both sides are outraged about this scandle, or did Charles Rangel change sides?
 
Ehh not quite sure on that. I'm a democrat and I payed a higher effective tax rate then Mitt Romney did. I know the majority of my co-workers did as well, it was quite the fiasco around election time.

Do you also make most of your money from capital gains?
 
Conservative groups made up only a third of the targeted groups.
i would like to correct that statement. conservative groups made up one third of groups that was investigated, all groups that apply for 501 status are investigated, Tea Party groups where targeted for extra scrutiny, they was singled out by using conservative buzz words
 
As I said, I don't condone it, I would like to point out though that the majority of this occurred under a Bush appointed commissioner.

How is that relevant?
 
I give you credit then. Most are not like you.

Deferring to Bush on this subject seems like you are Ok with what the Obama administration did here.

Are you outraged over this?
 
nyt, from the op:



lisa myers, nbc news, on coffee joe this morning:



NBC: Why Did IRS Mislead Congress For An Entire Year? | RealClearPolitics

yesterday the prevaricating potus was asked by bloomberg news...

he could NOT state unequivocally that he didn't know about the criminal behavior that was going on in this irs



U.S.-Turkey Relations - C-SPAN Video Library

moments later he added: "in terms of the white house and reporting, i think that, you know, you've gotten that information from mr carney and others... you know, i, i promise you this---the minute I [emphasis his] found out about it then my main focus is making sure that we get the thing fixed"

politico:



Obama pushes back on IRS, AP, Benghazi - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

which is all pretty ugly and all, y'all...

except what you don't seem quite yet to be appreciating is we've only just begun

irs hearings and headlines are going to be a permanent part of your little dp experience into perpetuity

we're gonna subpoena, we're gonna depose, we're gonna go special prosecutor

and sander levin aint gonna be able to say a word against us

listen to max trainwreck baucus (do you hate HIM yet?)



Democrat Baucus warns: More to come out on IRS scandal | WashingtonExaminer.com

we've already learned quite a lot (which you can't for a whit refute---tho you'll continue to talk, it's what you do...)

1. nyt: "obama admin knew of irs scandal 5 months before election"

2. politico: "he wouldn't say definitively that the white house was unaware of the targeting before then [april 22]"

stay tuned

Do you find it odd that the POTUS is on a need to know basis in his own White House and he didn't need to know about this?
 
Back
Top Bottom