Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Inner Party strikes back (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 28 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  26  27  28   
Author Topic: The Inner Party strikes back
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we SHOULD be asking that the IRS do what it did to the tea party et al for all applicants
If it is true that 75 of the organizations targeted did not have their tax exempt status revoked, asking that the IRS waste it's resources doing the same for all people isn't just stupid, it's pure evil.

The IRS does not and should not have the resources to audit everyone. In theory at least, The IRS audits should be trying to catch tax evaders in order to create a deterrent so people do not cheat and in order to increase government revenues so taxes do not need to be raised on honest people who follow the law to compensate for the lost income from the cheaters.

On the other hand, I am surprised that nobody else came up with the obvious and reasonably sounding excuse for why the IRS would naturally target organizations with the words "tea party" in their name.

After all the original Boston tea party was one of the best examples of people organizing together in order to violate the prevailing tax laws of their time. As the organization in charge of upholding the prevailing tax laws today, is it any wonder that IRS employees would try to target "tea party" organizations even if their premise eventually turned out to be wrong?

While believe that the "tea party" = "tax protest" argument may be a reasonable excuse for why the IRS did this, it does not explain the timing just before an election and the focus on Ohio.

[ May 13, 2013, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: seagull ]

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca/G3: Frankly, the narrative provided by the rude pundit is just as plausible. Which is why there needs to be an investigation before we proceed with the impeachment.

[ May 13, 2013, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There still seems to be a basic contradiction here.

These Tea Party groups are social welfare groups, right? That's what they are claiming; they are primarily organized for helping people. They do NOT primarily endorse candidates, such as Tea Party candidates. That's what they are telling us by wanting the tax-exempt status.

However, the Obama Administration is terrified of these social welfare groups, because they would somehow influence the election, right? They would somehow make it more likely that certain specific candidates would be elected. So, in order to prevent these candidates from being elected because of the influence of these social welfare groups, the Obama Administration directed the IRS to try to classify them as political action groups, ones that would influence whether certain candidates would be elected.

But, of course, these conservative Tea Party groups had absolutely nothing to do with trying to elect certain cadidates (such as Tea Party candidates). (Because, if they did, the Obama Administration would be right, and they would be political action groups and would not deserve their tax exempt status.) And, of course, it was quite obvious from the beginning that no Tea Party group was organized to elect any specific candidate (such as a Tea Party candidate) because they had social welfare as their obvious primarly purpose.

So the two questions I have are:

1. What did these social welfare groups spend their money on? What was this wonderful, non-political purpose for which these groups were formed that would make it obvious to even the most disinterested observer that they were completely non-political.

2. Why are political conservatives so angry that these non-political groups had so much scrutiny to determine they were actually non-political during the political season? It almost seems like they are worried that this scrutiny could have made it less-likely for certain conservative candidates to be elected if these non-political organizations weren't active in their tax-exempt activities.

Do you see the contraction that seems to be at the base of this "scandal?" [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it is true that 75 of the organizations targeted did not have their tax exempt status revoked, asking that the IRS waste it's resources doing the same for all people isn't just stupid, it's pure evil.

The IRS does not and should not have the resources to audit everyone. In theory at least, The IRS audits should be trying to catch tax evaders in order to create a deterrent so people do not cheat and in order to increase government revenues so taxes do not need to be raised on honest people who follow the law to compensate for the lost income from the cheaters.

"Everyone" in this context is all organizations filing for tax exempt status. If organizations are filing for tax exempt status, they meet certain criteria. Following the logic of your second paragraph here, we should be auditing everyone who applies for that tax exempt status in order to make sure that everyone who is trying to avoid paying taxes isn't cheating, so as not to have to raise taxes on honest people.

So... I'm trying to figure out how auditing everyone who says "I shouldn't have to pay taxes!" is pure evil.

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Seneca/G3: Frankly, the narrative provided by the rude pundit is just as plausible. Which is why there needs to be an investigation before we proceed with the impeachment.

Care to point out where I advocated immediate impeachment before an investigation?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was indeed hyperbolic on my part. What do you think needs to be done that isn't being done?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Care to point out where I advocated immediate impeachment before an investigation?
Just in case anyone doubts that there are those who are calling for Obama's impeachment...
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It went on for years with management and the
IRS chief counsel aware and participating

The article addressed the distortion you're presenting there directly.

Targeting tax evaders continued, sure, but management and the chief counsel went a couple rounds until they came up with policy language that made it clear that they were targeting tax evaders in general, not any specific group. They directly put the brakes on any attempts to take shortcuts by just looking at the groups that represented the bulk of the current attempts to game the system and ultimately came up with general language that pointed to the kind of scam that's being used to disguise PACs.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
That was indeed hyperbolic on my part. What do you think needs to be done that isn't being done?

We need an independent review from someone outside the administration and full access, no executive privilege allowed. I doubt we'd get as lucky as we did under Nixon to have a treasury department that refused to play ball if and when the white house asks.

[ May 13, 2013, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”

Yep, like I said ... a pattern.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Targeting tax evaders continued, sure, but management and the chief counsel went a couple rounds until they came up with policy language that made it clear that they were targeting tax evaders in general, not any specific group.

That is obviously not true.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seagull
Member
Member # 694

 - posted      Profile for seagull   Email seagull   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So... I'm trying to figure out how auditing everyone who says "I shouldn't have to pay taxes!" is pure evil.
I believe that I already said that "The IRS does not and should not have the resources to audit everyone". If you want to claim that everyone who says "I shouldn't have to pay taxes" should be approved, I would not argue with that.

But an Audit is a mechanism designed to catch some cheaters by sampling a population that raises "red flags" and to deter others from cheating without wasting the resources to audit 100% of the population. If non of the 75 organizations that were audited had their tax status revoked, that indicated a failure of the Audit process.

Arguing that "just because they were ineffective at catching even a single cheater means that we should give them more resources so they can treat everyone as cheaters" is what I consider to be evil. First of all, if the audit process failed, we should consider firing these auditors and finding some other more effective way to audit.

But at a deeper level that goes beyond this specific incident, when the cost and damages caused by too many unjustified audits exceeds the losses due to cheating there is no moral justification for doing an audit. Moreover, your suggestion of "auditing everyone" would remove the incentive to be honest because at least some people will start thinking "if I am going to be audited anyway I might as well cheat".

Anyone who is intelligent enough to understand these dynamics and still propose "auditing everyone" is pure evil (as in 1984's "big brother").

[ May 13, 2013, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: seagull ]

Posts: 1910 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Targeting tax evaders continued, sure, but management and the chief counsel went a couple rounds until they came up with policy language that made it clear that they were targeting tax evaders in general, not any specific group.

That is obviously not true.
Nothing yet contradicts it. Even the selectively edited bits that you've posted don't actually show any different. And even there you have yet to address the fact that if the groups are relevant political opponents, then the IRS was absolutely right to target them for abusing the system to avoid proper disclosure and accountability.

If they to legitimately represent political opponents, then they should be registered as PACs and not masquerading as social welfare organizations to evade proper public scrutiny.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
more patterns

quote:
From December 2012 to January 2013, ProPublica published the confidential pending IRS applications for tax-exempt status of six conservative organizations.

ProPublica acknowledged that the IRS was not supposed to release information on pending claims for tax-exempt status after publishing Crossroad GPS’s application.

“[IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge] cited a law saying that publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both,” according to ProPublica.

quote:
In a background call with reporters, a “senior administration official” used Koch Industries as an example of how large corporations used corporate structures to avoid taxes.

In the course of attacking Koch Industries, which employs over 50,000 people and is owned by prominent conservative philanthropists Charles and David Koch, the official divulged confidential tax information about the company. The official was later outed as Austan Goolsbee, the former director of the president’s Economic Recovery Board and then chair of the Council Of Economic Advisers.

Certainly it's time for a special prosecutor to begin investigating this and see who was involved and begin criminal proceeding where appropriate. A internal investigation by the regime's own justice department will have obvious a conflict of interest has no credibility whatsoever.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Targeting tax evaders continued, sure, but management and the chief counsel went a couple rounds until they came up with policy language that made it clear that they were targeting tax evaders in general, not any specific group.

That is obviously not true.
Nothing yet contradicts it. Even the selectively edited bits that you've posted don't actually show any different. And even there you have yet to address the fact that if the groups are relevant political opponents, then the IRS was absolutely right to target them for abusing the system to avoid proper disclosure and accountability.

If they to legitimately represent political opponents, then they should be registered as PACs and not masquerading as social welfare organizations to evade proper public scrutiny.

You are fractally wrong.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The pattern goes back a ways...

quote:
Obama's usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.

...

Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod's former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama's two principal opponents.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

Those records were under seal, but as The New York Times noted: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story." Many people said Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

...

As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! Jack Ryan...

Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier from Hollywood starlet Jeri Lynn Ryan, the bombshell Borg on "Star Trek: Voyager."

Jack Ryan had released his tax records. He had released his divorce records. But both he and his ex-wife sought to keep the custody records under seal to protect their son.

Amid the 400 pages of filings from the custody case, Jack Ryan claimed that his wife had had an affair, and she counterclaimed with the allegation that he had taken her to "sex clubs" in Paris, New York and New Orleans, which drove her to fall in love with another man.

...

Ryan had vehemently denied her allegations at the time, but it didn't matter. The sex club allegations aired on "Entertainment Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," ABC's "Good Morning America," "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," and NBC's "Today" show. CNN covered the story like it was the first moon landing.

(Interestingly, international papers also were ablaze with the story -- the same newspapers that were supposed to be so bored with American sexual mores during Bill Clinton's sex scandal.)

Four days after Judge Schnider unsealed the custody records, Ryan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking "no" for an answer.

Alan Keyes stepped in as a last-minute Republican candidate.

And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from "sealed" court records.

bama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago.

The IRS targeting is all a continuation of a well established pattern of operating by Obama and the Chicago cronies. The latest is just a continuation of a well worn and continual strategy. This is what Obama and his team do and they've gotten away with it time and again. Who should be surprised if they decided to continue it?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You are fractally wrong.
And yet you haven't actually backed that assertion in any way, just kept repeating it despite the fact that none of the facts support your contentions.

You are right, though, that there's a pattern, but the pattern is one of conservative political advocacy groups abusing social welfare group status to conceal their donors and evade proper scrutiny.

Again, you fail to address the fact that the social welfare group these organizations are using is not supposed to be for organizations whose purpose is political activism, or that, by and large, it is conservative and tea party affiliate groups that are abusing it to avoid registering as PACs.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.

If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet — in mailing lists, newsgroups, or forums — your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.

Good advice which I shall take. [Wink]
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't think the type of group in question is quite the same as a PAC, super or otherwise. That is, I think a super PAC does exist primarily to further a political campaign, and doesn't pretend otherwise.

Colbert created a 501c4 to accept donations that would then be funneled to the super pac. Much the same way that Rove's Crossroads and Crossroeas GPS organizations work. The lines between super pacs and social welfare organizations are virtually non existent.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm always amused by G3's careful culling of his facts. Not to mention that he's not interested in how the GOP has pried deeply into Obama's life, including his religious leanings, education, childhood and even his birth. The number and variety of false claims made against Obama by the GOP establishment and Conservative media is truly staggering.

Here's a different take on the unsealing of Ryan's divorce records and political demise:
quote:
...when Ryan's Senate campaign began, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have the records released. On March 3, 2004, several of Ryan's GOP primary opponents urged release of the records. Both Ryan and his wife had agreed to make their divorce records public...
and
quote:
Then the bombshell hit, but it was not really unexpected. On March 11th, a campaign staffer for candidate John Borling, released on his own, a statement that made three allegations, the third allegation in the list was:

He (Jack Ryan) took her (Jeri Lynn) to various clubs, specifically in New York, New Orleans, and Paris and coerced her to have sex in front of other people.

When this came out there was no way to verify the truth of the claims, because Ryan's custody papers were sealed. They were sealed initially because Ryan's celebrity wife had a stalker.

However, as soon as this happened a media firestorm erupted, hundreds of stories ran urging Jack to release the papers, and questioning the contents. Tribune columnist John Kass, wrote two days before the primary election:

Republican front-runner Jack Ryan is trying to keep his divorce files sealed. Rumors of what's in the files hound him.

I don't care about his divorce. I do care if he can be pressured with what's in the files. And if Ryan thinks the information in those files won't get out during the general election campaign, he's delusional.

It looks to me like Ryan had serious personal issues. It's debatable whether they would have affected his ability to carry out his responsibilities as a Senator in the "family values" Party, but sensationalism and sex make and break careers every day. The web site I found goes on to show many elements in the timeline, including loud calls from other Republicans for him to withdraw. Perhaps G3 will get lucky and people he looks to for insights into politics will yet find something salacious in Obama's background.

[ May 14, 2013, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think G3 is a liberal mole. Here he's got a real honest to goodness scandal here and he's bringing up Jack Ryan?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, looks like he slipped his leash again.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately for us liberals, this scandal may have legs. Nate Silver thinks it has all the characteristics of a scandal that could affect the next election.

The best that Democrats can do is take the lumps and get this over with as quickly as possible.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or you know, learn you can't get away with this **** regardless of your party.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, they slipped their leash.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At first I reasoned that possibly improper screening of groups applying for tax exempt status at one office in Ohio had to be a local blunder. Then I remembered that in the heated atmosphere leading up to the 2012 election Ohio was widely expected to be the swing state that determined the result, even I think by Nate Silver whose analysis above I thoroughly applaud, so Democrats even in the White House might think that interfering with the ability of such groups to raise money until after the election could change the outcome.

If anyone did this, it was wasted effort. Sometime before the election, if I recall correctly, a news story noted that Romney had sent three staffers to Ohio and rented an office. The story also noted that Obama had 150 staffers in the state who had been working for two years. The Obama campaign made very, very sure Ohio would not go Republican, and it never came close to doing so. And if it had, that outcome would have made no difference, since winning Ohio would have done nothing for the Romney cause.

One nice thing about our otherwise crazy electoral college system is that those who break the law trying to game the system almost always find themselves worrying about criminal charges while realizing what they may have done had no effect. That probably does more to stop electoral fraud than anything else. In this case perhaps the exhaustive investigations will reveal whether those involved really wanted to change the outcome of the election, or merely wanted to ask extra questions of those groups most likely not to deserve tax exempt status. The criteria cited may have been improper, or they may have reflected the reality that most questionable groups applying did have Tea Party in their names. A charitable organization dedicated to the welfare of dachshunds may be sort of silly, but it is probably not heavily and improperly engaged in politics. Tea Party groups might well be, so it made sense to target them. But groups possibly misusing funds to support Democrats should have been equally targeted, but if not it may mean only that Democrats had raised all the money and done all the advertising they needed for the Ohio campaign.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The scandal is widening.

quote:
The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group ProPublica says the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) office that targeted and harassed conservative tax-exempt groups during the 2012 election cycle gave the progressive group nine confidential applications of conservative groups whose tax-exempt status was pending.

The commendable admission lends further evidence to the lengths the IRS went during an election cycle to silence tea party and limited government voices.

...

The group says that "no unapproved applications from liberal groups were sent to ProPublica

quote:
The report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration described in detail the use of “inappropriate criteria” to screen political advocacy groups. An IRS unit created a “lookout” list for organizations with keywords such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. Organizations faced months of delays in getting their applications approved.
Contrast that with the treatment of favored organizations:

quote:
Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

Lerner also appears to have broken with the norms of tax-exemption approval by granting retroactive tax-exempt status to Malik Obama’s organization.

there are a growing number of reports of specific individuals being targeted as well.

A criminal investigation is in the works.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Widening even more.

quote:
The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency.

IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is “unclear” whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day…

Given the advance knowledge of the program, Issa and Jordan voiced serious concerns about the honesty of top IRS officials and the lack of disciplinary action. The lawmakers said they’ve learned nobody has been disciplined and that one employee at the Cincinnati office where this program was supposedly started “received a promotion or ‘career enhancement.’”…

They said “at no point” did Lerner or anyone else inform Congress of the findings. And they claimed it appeared Lerner “provided false or misleading information on four separate occasions” in 2012 on the program.

Nearly 500 political opponents targeted with no clarity on whether or not the practice continues. In lieu of discipline, promotions.

Just wait until the IRS makes decisions on your medical care. Won't that be nice?

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whether or not illegal practices happened here it will be interesting to see how far people who are anti-Obama take the implications of this legitimate scandal. We've seen with the Benghazi "scandal" that Obama, the State Department, and the military did nothing inappropriate or wrong, but that doesn't stop people from attacking them. There are even calls for Obama's impeachment being raised in Congress. I hope that doesn't come to pass, but if it does I can imagine that it will destroy the GOP and obsessive anti-Obamite credibility once and for all.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And then they asked whether one group knew Justin Binik-Thomas.

Never heard of him? He’s a former leader of the Cincinnati Tea Party, and clearly someone in the Cincinnati IRS office knew who he was.

So when the Liberty Township Tea Party applied for tax-exempt status, the IRS threw this question into its March 2011 letter to the group: “Provide details regarding your relationship with Justin Binik-Thomas.” (They didn’t know him well enough to spell his name right.)

In an interview Tuesday, Binik-Thomas said he has never worked with the Liberty group and isn’t sure why the IRS asked that group about him — although he says it’s “possible that they just Googled ‘tea party’ and assumed that we’re all the same.”

But Binik-Thomas said it was a chilling experience when the Liberty group told him his name was in their letter — because now he wonders what else the IRS has in store for him.

“Will my personal taxes get audited? Will my small-business taxes get audited? Am I a pawn to try to get at another group?” Binik-Thomas asked.

Why should he worry? If he's done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear right?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For G3 post-before-last:

Linkie 1 for " The progressive-leaning investigative journalism group..."

Linkie 2 for "The report by the Treasury Inspector General..."

Linkie 3 for "Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official..."

[ May 15, 2013, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More are coming forward ...

quote:
When a Tennessee lawyer asked the IRS for tax-exempt status for a mentoring group that trained high school and college students about conservative political philosophy, the agency responded with a list of 95 questions in 31 parts, including an ultimatum for a list of everyone the group had trained, or planned to train.

'Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide,' the IRS demanded. 'Indicate who has received or will receive the training and submit copies of the training material.'

That question was part of the tax collection agency's February 14, 2012 letter to Kevin Kookogey. founder of the group Linchpins of Liberty. He had submitted his application 13 months earlier.

'Can you imagine my responsibility to parents if I disclosed the names of their children to the IRS?' he asked MailOnline.

It's 'an impossible question to answer fully and truthfully,' he said, 'without disclosing the names of anyone I ever taught, or would ever teach, including students.'

<snip>

But Kookogey said a $30,000 grant was canceled as a result of the IRS's months-long radio silence, when he couldn't tell his donor that Linchpins had earned its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

That money would have made a significant difference to the group, judging from its public filings in Tennessee. In 2011, Linchpins of Liberty reported collecting just $3,460 in contributions, and spending $7,328 on its programs.

Not only organizations or tax exempt status:
quote:
On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told TheBlaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.

According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her and “what their politics were.”

It all started with a phone call she received at her home in May of that year — a call during which Hendershott was told she would be audited. A letter that followed on May 19, 2010 solidified the IRS’s request to meet her in person two months later in July. While IRS investigations are certainly not uncommon occurrences, the professor believes that the situation surrounding hers was more-than-curious.

And why would she suspect that? Because:
quote:
Hendershott noted it was particularly surprising that she, alone, was audited. Her husband, who brings in the vast majority of the family’s income, was not included in the IRS’s inquiry — even though the Hendershotts always files jointly.

So when the agent explained that she would need to come alone and in person to discuss her “business” activity in July of 2010, the professor was perplexed.

“[The IRS agent] didn’t even let me decide when it would be good for me … He didn’t want my husband to come,” she said of the meeting, which was held at an IRS office in New Haven, Connecticut.

So their tax return was not being audited, it was Anne Hendershott specifically.
quote:
While asking about the deposits, the agent wanted to know if the monies came from groups and, if so, what the organizations’ politics were.
Yep, it was about her politics specifically.

quote:
Her writings for the Catholic Advocate soon ceased because, Hendershott admits, the IRS audit silenced her. If her suspicions are true, this may have been its chilling intention.

“I haven’t written for them since the audit, because I was so scared,” she said (records show her last article for the organization was on July 10, 2010 — the same month the IRS audit unfolded).

So far, she has only shared her story with friends and those close to her, but in light of the recent IRS scandal, she has decided to speak out.

“It was clear they didn’t like me criticizing the people who helped pass Obamacare,” she said of the audit,” later adding, ”The IRS is very frightening.”

In addition to creating stress and fear, Hendershott said that the experience came at a great emotional and financial expense for the family, noting that even after the audit the government sought more information from her.

“It was like they just couldn’t find what they wanted because they wanted more and more and more,” she said.

”The IRS is very frightening.” Damn right it is, which makes it perfect for the Obama regime to use in silencing or intimidating opposition.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Care to point out where I advocated immediate impeachment before an investigation?
Just in case anyone doubts that there are those who are calling for Obama's impeachment...
We may yet see those calls go into the main stream. For historical perspective, from the Second Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon(adopted by House Judiciary Committee vote of 28-10:
quote:
He [Nixon] has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
If this continues to spread, it could actually take him down. Which I can't see any sane person wanting - let the clown, Biden, have his finger on the button? No thanks. Maybe this will sweep up Biden at the same time.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"”The IRS is very frightening.” Damn right it is, which makes it perfect for the Obama regime to use in silencing or intimidating opposition."

You think that would be new? Nixon was famous for it, and Reagan tried to use the IRS to shut down Mother Jones. Bush was no slouch in this area, either. The difference between them and Obama is that they were all going after Democrats and liberals.

[ May 15, 2013, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy crap, it just keeps coming....
quote:
The Internal Revenue Service is now facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.
According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents," the complaint reads. "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records," it continued.

I'm sure they were all low level staffers. Really.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al:
quote:
You think that would be new?
Does it have to be new to shock or anger? Your acceptance of this as business as usual is quite worrisome.

[ May 15, 2013, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oops. Turns out that only about 1/3 of the groups targeted for special scrutiny were conservative groups. Seems like someone took a bit of the actual report out of context and used it to create a bit of outrage on false premises:

http://seeingtheforest.com/phony-irs-scandal-weve-been-okeefed-again/

quote:
Figure 4 shows that approximately one-third of the applications identified for processing by the team of specialists included Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names, while the remainder did not. According to the Director, Rulings and Agreements, the fact that the team of specialists worked applications that did not involve the Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 groups demonstrated that the IRS was not politically biased in its identification of applications for processing by the team of specialists.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, I don't believe that proves the IRS was not being biased.

How many organizations with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were not targeted for special scrutiny? If nealy all of them were targeted, then they were still being singled out, even if they comprised only 1/3 of all special scrutiny.

[ May 15, 2013, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is this sort of like when, at the urging of Republican members of congress, the IRS targeted the NAACP?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those that didn't actually go to the link , the full IG report is here, including some decent timelines:

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf


There were IRS foulups, but they seem to stem mostly from trying to deal with how ambiguous guidance on identifying political groups, especially in light of the flood of applications from conservative groups after Citizens United.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 28 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  26  27  28   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1