• 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 conspiracies fall apart as BOLO list targeting ‘progressive’ groups revealed

Here's an interesting tidbit from the newsletter Tax Notes. As we all know by now, the IRS applies extra scrutiny to a group applying for tax-exempt status if it suspects the group is political in nature. In 2010, they decided that having "tea party" in a group's name was sufficient to raise a red flag.

The Inspector General's report about this included an audit of 298 groups that had been given special scrutiny. Of these, 96 had "tea party," "patriots," or "9-12 project" in their names. But that's all we know. We have no idea how many of the 298 groups were liberal and how many were conservative, because the IRS doesn't release the name of groups that have applied for tax-exempt status.

However, the IRS does publish the names of groups that have received special scrutiny and been approved for tax-exempt status. They recently released a list of 176 organizations that have been approved since 2010, so Martin Sullivan checked each one to figure out if it was liberal or conservative. Here's what he found:

122 conservative
48 liberal/nonconservative
6 unknown
This doesn't tell us anything definitive about the entire set of groups that got special scrutiny. If the whole set is similar to the approved set, then about two-thirds were conservative and one-third liberal—most likely because of the boom in new tea party groups in 2010. But that's just a guess.

One thing isn't a guess, however: Two-thirds of the groups who were approved for tax-exempt status were conservative. If the IRS was on a partisan witch hunt against conservative groups, that's sure an odd way of showing it, isn't it?

Report Says IRS Approved Tax-Exempt Status For Twice as Many Conservative Groups as Liberal Groups | Mother Jones

And it's been well reported that there was a flurry of approvals following the revelation that the IRS has been sandbagging the applications. The point is, they treated the different groups differently, which has been well documented and admitted to by not only the IRS, but the WH.

:shrug:
 
And it's been well reported that there was a flurry of approvals following the revelation that the IRS has been sandbagging the applications.
This is a study of groups since 2010, if you have some evidence that all these con groups gained approval recently, present, back whatever point you are trying to make

The point is, they treated the different groups differently, which has been well documented and admitted to by not only the IRS, but the WH.
Again, BOLA included both con and lib groups.

Another data point:

In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com
 
No, this is another case of you sidestepping the truth. The report indicates that conservative groups were unfairly scrutinized. This report says...if you bother to read it...that though leftist groups were also scrutinized, they received their tax exempt status FAR more rapidly than did the conservative groups. You should actually read, and stop repeating talking points.

Where does it say that? Provide the quote you're referring to.
 
It confirms that he agreed the IRS targeted conservative groups. :shrug:

Yeah, he didn't have all the facts since Issa deep sixed what he could. Obama should never trust any Republican. They are liars to the core. He should have assumed Issa was lying and gone from there. Indeed, he should call on an investigation of Issa's involvement with the IRS internal audit. He apparently concealed important information about conservative targeting of progressive groups.
 
And it's been well reported that there was a flurry of approvals following the revelation that the IRS has been sandbagging the applications. The point is, they treated the different groups differently, which has been well documented and admitted to by not only the IRS, but the WH.

:shrug:

Yeah, the GOP operatives in the Cincinnati group targeted progressive groups. Issa tried to conceal that fact, but now it's out.

So much for the conservative narrative.
 
This is a study of groups since 2010, if you have some evidence that all these con groups gained approval recently, present, back whatever point you are trying to make

Again, BOLA included both con and lib groups.

Another data point:

In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

Thats just it, Ive posted the info from 538.com about this situation. From 2010 to the election they approved only 4 groups under the naming criteria. Despite the supposed information that they had a flood of conservative groups, they only approved 4? How can that possibly be right?

Here is your link: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...arty-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/

Here is your graph:
fivethirtyeight tea party approvals.png

The IRS approved a bunch of groups immediately after the investigation began back in 2012. But many, many more were left in limbo where they did not know what their status was/is.
 
Thats just it, Ive posted the info
I see you skipped over my previous post that goes a bit deeper than the 538 post:



Here's an interesting tidbit from the newsletter Tax Notes. As we all know by now, the IRS applies extra scrutiny to a group applying for tax-exempt status if it suspects the group is political in nature. In 2010, they decided that having "tea party" in a group's name was sufficient to raise a red flag.

The Inspector General's report about this included an audit of 298 groups that had been given special scrutiny. Of these, 96 had "tea party," "patriots," or "9-12 project" in their names. But that's all we know. We have no idea how many of the 298 groups were liberal and how many were conservative, because the IRS doesn't release the name of groups that have applied for tax-exempt status.

However, the IRS does publish the names of groups that have received special scrutiny and been approved for tax-exempt status. They recently released a list of 176 organizations that have been approved since 2010, so Martin Sullivan checked each one to figure out if it was liberal or conservative. Here's what he found:

122 conservative
48 liberal/nonconservative
6 unknown
This doesn't tell us anything definitive about the entire set of groups that got special scrutiny. If the whole set is similar to the approved set, then about two-thirds were conservative and one-third liberal—most likely because of the boom in new tea party groups in 2010. But that's just a guess.

One thing isn't a guess, however: Two-thirds of the groups who were approved for tax-exempt status were conservative. If the IRS was on a partisan witch hunt against conservative groups, that's sure an odd way of showing it, isn't it?
Report Says IRS Approved Tax-Exempt Status For Twice as Many Conservative Groups as Liberal Groups | Mother Jones

Let the nit-pic posting commence....
 
I see you skipped over my previous post that goes a bit deeper than the 538 post:



Here's an interesting tidbit from the newsletter Tax Notes. As we all know by now, the IRS applies extra scrutiny to a group applying for tax-exempt status if it suspects the group is political in nature. In 2010, they decided that having "tea party" in a group's name was sufficient to raise a red flag.

The Inspector General's report about this included an audit of 298 groups that had been given special scrutiny. Of these, 96 had "tea party," "patriots," or "9-12 project" in their names. But that's all we know. We have no idea how many of the 298 groups were liberal and how many were conservative, because the IRS doesn't release the name of groups that have applied for tax-exempt status.

However, the IRS does publish the names of groups that have received special scrutiny and been approved for tax-exempt status. They recently released a list of 176 organizations that have been approved since 2010, so Martin Sullivan checked each one to figure out if it was liberal or conservative. Here's what he found:

122 conservative
48 liberal/nonconservative
6 unknown
This doesn't tell us anything definitive about the entire set of groups that got special scrutiny. If the whole set is similar to the approved set, then about two-thirds were conservative and one-third liberal—most likely because of the boom in new tea party groups in 2010. But that's just a guess.

One thing isn't a guess, however: Two-thirds of the groups who were approved for tax-exempt status were conservative. If the IRS was on a partisan witch hunt against conservative groups, that's sure an odd way of showing it, isn't it?
Report Says IRS Approved Tax-Exempt Status For Twice as Many Conservative Groups as Liberal Groups | Mother Jones

Let the nit-pic posting commence....

Damn near all of them were approved after the election and the IG examination. Timing is very important on this issue because a hold up in the lead in to the election means more than approving even ALL of the groups after the election.
 
Damn near all of them were approved after the election and the IG examination. Timing is very important on this issue because a hold up in the lead in to the election means more than approving even ALL of the groups after the election.
I see your argument is reduced to whinning about "the timing".

Yawn, it used to be all about how put upon the con groups were.

Next up, con groups complain about the stationary sent to them by the IRS.

I can't wait for the next nit you pic.
 
IRS conspiracies fall apart as BOLO list targeting ‘progressive’ groups revealed



Awwww... it looks like yet another phoney outrage and manufactured story to make the Democrats (particularly Obama) look bad, unprofessional, deceitful and evil has gone up in smoke. Will Issa eat a whole ****ing humble pie for himself, or will he still pretend (like those who suffer from tinfoilasitis), that the big bad IRS -- no matter the evidence -- IS still after the poor and victimized widdle wight wingers? So many here were duped big time and it seems to be a common occurrence in this days of misinformation. So, to those who fell hook line and sinker... how does this new information make you feel and how will you approach the next "scandal"? I am seriously curious.

Funny thing, there are some major concrete things to be upset with the Obama Administration, including the fact that they have done pretty much nothing to change the regulations of the banking industry... an industry that almost collapsed the American economy. Amazing that it seems few are angry about this, yet get a boner with incredibly stupid stories like the IRS.

IRS conspiracies fall apart as BOLO list targeting ‘progressive’ groups revealed | The Raw Story

....so the "conspiracy" falls apart because the IRS goes against any politically outspoken group? I think that's even worse than before.
 
I see your argument is reduced to whinning about "the timing".

Yawn, it used to be all about how put upon the con groups were.

Next up, con groups complain about the stationary sent to them by the IRS.

I can't wait for the next nit you pic.

I see your argument is pedantic idiocy.

You know as well as I do that the timing and the way it was carried out stink to high heaven.

Whats your argument? That because groups were approved after the election it doesnt matter? Not even leftist journalists with a shred of integrity buy into that, because its not true. Doing this before the election makes it worse---not better.

I made the mistaken assumption that using a left leaning source might mean some kind of dent in your unreasonable front of apologizing for the IRS because this story is bad for liberalism. Too bad you cant put politics above reason.
 
Close, I am pretty sure he would be yelling at an empty chair thinking Obama is there. Leave it to republicans to finally have an issue people give a damn about which they could get traction on, and they are still yelling at imaginary chair Obama in the IRS. They know Obama was there because what office doesn't have empty chairs. On one hand you have the open and allowable spying on all of america which Obama admits to and Issa ignores, and Issa wants us to be outraged that the rich people hiding their money in hijacked tea party charity groups had to wait a little bit longer for their super special certificate of ass kissing from the conservative rep who rubber stamped all of their approvals. I would like to say Issa is stupid, but clearly he knows his voters are more concerned about a tax avoidance scam for the rich then obama spying on them because of the war on terror started under Bush. For people who hate the guy they sure as hell pick an insane time to start trusting him. We cannot trust Obama to fairly give every tea party application a stamp of approval, but it is all cool for him to record our phone calls and monitor our web activity because we might be the manchurian candidate and not ever know it. Obama cannot take our guns, but it is cool if he wants to take the gay porn collection of every conservative republican. Obama is trying to steal elections through voter fraud, but it is ok if he does it by making all of his opponents felons and terrorists through secretly spying on them and using what would normally be tossed out of court as an illegal wiretap against them in a secret trial without a jury.

I used to think there would be a bottom to the pit of republican hypocrisy. I used to think if Obama ever did something truly detestable and wrong that the republicans would get him. I obviously was a friggen moron to think those things.

Thanks for your long post. We certainly appreciate how you broke this up into short and succinct paragraphs to aid the reader.

As to last point about "...if Obama ever did something truly detestable and wrong that the republicans would get him..." I think that is true. The problem is that the Cons keep trying to create the crime and hang it on the man. Obama has yet to fit the bill of doing something "truly destestable AND wrong"... at least from a "get him" perspective. Rather than try to make stuff up, while you are waiting for the "truly destestable AND wrong", perhaps come up with a vision for America... perhaps, actually do what Boehner says is the #1 issue: jobs. The Cons have no plan for jobs other than tax cuts (aka - silliness).

As to Obama trying to steal elections through voter fraud; at least the type of voter fraud that Cons want you to believe... getting people that aren't eligible to vote to vote.... that is one of the most laughable, non-plausible indictments ever levied. Do you have any idea how many people you need in on this plan to actually effect the outcome of a national election (with sufficient certainty to actually try it)? At least 100,000 to 1 million people would have to risk jail time to vote illegally. If anyone were dumb enough to actually propose such lunacy; certainly smarter people would shoot it down because getting 100,000 people to keep their mouth shut.... well impossible.

The way you steal elections through voter fraud is the way the Cons do it: by suppressing the vote with voter ID laws and placing insufficient voting machines in unfavorable districts. The other way to do it is to mess with the tabulation systems (computer hacking)... Sorry, but the idea that national election outcomes are altered by registering illegal votes is a myth perpetuated by mental lightweights that do not think through thinks like that.

As to spying on Americans, I agree that is an outrage. It should be a bi-partisan outrage levied against both parties, as the idea of the Imperial Presidency (the Executive that is above the law) seems to be something the leaders of both parties agree upon, though we should not.
 
Last edited:
I see your argument is pedantic idiocy.

You know as well as I do that the timing and the way it was carried out stink to high heaven.

Whats your argument? That because groups were approved after the election it doesnt matter? Not even leftist journalists with a shred of integrity buy into that, because its not true. Doing this before the election makes it worse---not better.

I made the mistaken assumption that using a left leaning source might mean some kind of dent in your unreasonable front of apologizing for the IRS because this story is bad for liberalism. Too bad you cant put politics above reason.
Ive just got my panties in a bunch because of how all these small time liberal groups did not get their status established PLUS the fact that a greater number never were approved as tax exempt and this caused the Obama campaign coffers to run short on funding!!!!!!!

whine whine whine.

Mitten's woulda been POTUS....if the baggers had been able to get their tax exemption!!!
 
This is a study of groups since 2010, if you have some evidence that all these con groups gained approval recently, present, back whatever point you are trying to make

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0

Again, BOLA included both con and lib groups.

Another data point:

In fact, the only known 501(c)(4) applicant to have its status denied happens to be a progressive group: the Maine chapter of Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. Although the group did no electoral work, and didn’t participate in independent expenditure campaign activity either, its partisan status apparently disqualified it from being categorized as working for the “common good.”

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

You keep ignoring the fact that leftist groups received their status approval in a matter of weeks, while conservative groups took years. :shrug:
 
Yeah, he didn't have all the facts since Issa deep sixed what he could. Obama should never trust any Republican. They are liars to the core. He should have assumed Issa was lying and gone from there. Indeed, he should call on an investigation of Issa's involvement with the IRS internal audit. He apparently concealed important information about conservative targeting of progressive groups.

Obama must be pretty easily fooled by the big bad Republicans.
 
Yeah, the GOP operatives in the Cincinnati group targeted progressive groups. Issa tried to conceal that fact, but now it's out.

So much for the conservative narrative.

It's entertaining **** you guys come up with.
 
Ive just got my panties in a bunch because of how all these small time liberal groups did not get their status established PLUS the fact that a greater number never were approved as tax exempt and this caused the Obama campaign coffers to run short on funding!!!!!!!

whine whine whine.

Mitten's woulda been POTUS....if the baggers had been able to get their tax exemption!!!

Gonna make a point or troll all day?
 
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0



You keep ignoring the fact that leftist groups received their status approval in a matter of weeks, while conservative groups took years. :shrug:

They were seeking Determination Letters, not approval. You do not need approval to be a 501(c)(4) status; you may simply self-declare. The reason these groups sought Determination Letters is they knew that if they did qualify, they barely qualified. The Determination Letter is an IRS ruling of a questionable item prior to implementation. They are nor necessary. Moreover, these groups did not need 501(c)(4) status for tax exemption; that is available to them under 527. The reason these groups sought 501(c)(4) status was to hide their donors.

The reason most liberal groups went through faster is that many of these liberal groups were more social welfare in nature and less about political advocacy. Most tea party groups are mostly about political advocacy, which must be the minor activity of the 501(c)(4). Sorry, but this is most outrage about the IRS actually doing its job..... and the Republican party making a mountain out of a molehill, as unlike the IRS, the Republicans do not like to do their jobs.
 
They were seeking Determination Letters, not approval. You do not need approval to be a 501(c)(4) status; you may simply self-declare. The reason these groups sought Determination Letters is they knew that if they did qualify, they barely qualified. The Determination Letter is an IRS ruling of a questionable item prior to implementation. They are nor necessary. Moreover, these groups did not need 501(c)(4) status for tax exemption; that is available to them under 527. The reason these groups sought 501(c)(4) status was to hide their donors.

The reason most liberal groups went through faster is that many of these liberal groups were more social welfare in nature and less about political advocacy. Most tea party groups are mostly about political advocacy, which must be the minor activity of the 501(c)(4). Sorry, but this is most outrage about the IRS actually doing its job..... and the Republican party making a mountain out of a molehill, as unlike the IRS, the Republicans do not like to do their jobs.

Semantics. The IRS treated conservative applications differently than they treated liberal ones. That simple.
 
They were seeking Determination Letters, not approval. You do not need approval to be a 501(c)(4) status; you may simply self-declare. The reason these groups sought Determination Letters is they knew that if they did qualify, they barely qualified. The Determination Letter is an IRS ruling of a questionable item prior to implementation. They are nor necessary. Moreover, these groups did not need 501(c)(4) status for tax exemption; that is available to them under 527. The reason these groups sought 501(c)(4) status was to hide their donors.

The reason most liberal groups went through faster is that many of these liberal groups were more social welfare in nature and less about political advocacy. Most tea party groups are mostly about political advocacy, which must be the minor activity of the 501(c)(4). Sorry, but this is most outrage about the IRS actually doing its job..... and the Republican party making a mountain out of a molehill, as unlike the IRS, the Republicans do not like to do their jobs.

NOW, you can self declare. Your status was not certain until recently with a new policy in place. Before, when uncertain about their status they didnt know if their donors anonymity was in jeapordy or if they would be audited later or hit with fines. Cause thats kind of what the IRS does.

No. This outrage is about the IRS NOT doing its job just before an election. If they did their job they would have approved liberal and conservative groups at the same pace. They did not. Or do I have to put the graphic up AGAIN? You know the one that shows only 4 groups in the conservative naming criteria were approved in 2 years right before an election and right AFTER Obama got shellacked in 2010. Whether he was behind it or not, its was obviously convenient for the President at the time.

Gimmesometruth, in order to counter something you need to say more than no, it didnt. This isnt the Monty Python argument clinic.
 
Whoops. OP debunked.
Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party - The Hill's On The Money

Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury inspector general.

Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.

“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.

The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.

“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
 
Semantics. The IRS treated conservative applications differently than they treated liberal ones. That simple.

OMG!!! Who would have thought that the IRS would treat tax cheats differently than people who followed the rules!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom