IRS

Posted by: yoyo52

IRS - 05/13/13 11:27 AM

Deep doo-doo time!
Posted by: steveg

Re: IRS - 05/13/13 12:18 PM

You mean this?

Or did youse try to snooker yer Uncle? shocked
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: IRS - 05/13/13 02:37 PM

I like C&L, but this time there does seem to have been a targeting of political groups, and that's as wrong as can be. I know that the argument from the IRS people who did this has to do with the way that the law defines how funds can be used, but surely it's not only the right wing that flaps up those kinds of concerns.

Oh, and about my uncle . . . 'nuff said, eh? wink
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: IRS - 05/14/13 04:08 AM

Do you think Lerner should be punished for what she did working with the IRS?
Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/14/13 06:10 AM

Heard Chris Hayes last night explain it and it IS a legitimate IRS action. They have to check these groups especially the conservative ones - they say they're doing one thing ( community service) while doing political stunts!! Roves' BS is the perfect example. It's not the bad thing one first perceives! mad
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: IRS - 05/14/13 03:39 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
Heard Chris Hayes last night explain it and it IS a legitimate IRS action. They have to check these groups especially the conservative ones

I saw the same segment and they went to some pains to point out that groups trying to take advantage of the rules are not exclusively, or even mostly, conservative in nature ...

Quote:
- they say they're doing one thing ( community service) while doing political stunts!! Roves' BS is the perfect example. It's not the bad thing one first perceives! mad

It is if you apply the rules to only a select class of applicants ...

The problem isn't the process of screening applicants for possible ulterior political motives, which law mandates the IRS to do ... the problem is engaging that process with a bias towards groups with a particular point of view ...
Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/14/13 04:02 PM

Quote:
The problem isn't the process of screening applicants for possible ulterior political motives, which law mandates the IRS to do ... the problem is engaging that process with a bias towards groups with a particular point of view ...

Well with Rove's history, and other conservatives following his lead - I can't totally blame them. I know it should been done more objectively and screen some "left leaning" ones too - to be fair !
Posted by: garyW

Re: IRS - 05/14/13 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: DLC
I can't totally blame them. I know it should been done more objectively and screen some "left leaning" ones too - to be fair !



From 2012, the first non-profit political target by the IRS was a Democratic one.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...tions-ofer-lion

A 501(c)(4) group denied tax-exempt status by the IRS would
run afoul of Federal Election Commission rules and could be
required to disclose its donors.

Emerge America, a group which helps Democratic women seeking
elected office, said it lost it tax-exempt status last October.
The IRS invoked the "private benefit doctrine" barring 501(c)(4)
status for any group promoting a candidate or political party.
The IRS announced its final decision in May.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: IRS - 05/15/13 06:16 AM

There is no justification from the IRS for this behavior.
Posted by: garyW

Re: IRS - 05/15/13 01:08 PM

Quote:
Robert Reich: Keep your eye on THE BIG SCANDAL!

Keep your eye on the big scandal. Although the IRS was wrong to target conservative groups for review based on their names, the bigger wrong was its failure to investigate the major groups -- such as Karl Rove's Grossroads GPS and Priorities USA -- that falsely claimed to be "social welfare organizations" under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to hide the names of their donors. And the real scandal of the 2012 election (which will be even worse next year, because they got away with it) is how many corporations and wealthy individuals used this loophole to disguise their identities while pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns. The Supreme Court in "Citizens United" at least assumed full disclosure, but the "social welfare organization" loophole in the tax laws has allowed corporations to keep political spending secret even from their own shareholders.

The worst outcome of the indignation over the IRS's targeting of conservative groups would be for the under-manned IRS to pull back from investigating all putative "social welfare organizations," thereby turning the scandalous loophole into a giant river of secret money. Our democracy is already being purchased by big corporations and the rich. At the least we should know who the buyers are.



Posted by: Celandine

Re: IRS - 05/16/13 12:44 AM


+1

SpotOn
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: IRS - 05/16/13 03:33 AM

That is who Obama should have selected to run the treasury R. Reich is very well known economist and an honest person. Not Lew who was associated with banks in his career.I believe in Robert Reich what he says.
Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/17/13 08:32 AM

Well it's looking like this will fizzle out. Coming home from the Dr., I was listening to Congressional testimony.
1. The current IRS commissioner was appointed by GW Bush. So that nixes the idea this originated with Obama.

2. The previous IRS Commissioner Shulman was also appointed by Bush. So this breaks the idea of a "liberal conspiracy" to target the Tea Party.

3. The IRS gets >70,000 requests each year and the office that handles this is staffed by 150-200 people... that's 350-400 cases / employee/ year... can you say short staffed ?

4.From testimony, this appears to be an error due to triaging the huge number of applications coming in. Just like in medicine, they take the most obvious and lump them together. This may be one of many tea party applicants appeared in the same pool. It was not conscious political targeting, but just the way the rules for triaging were applied.

5. Many administrators in the IRS were unaware of the details this is coming out in Congressional testimony. So if they did know, how would Barack Obama know?

This is all going to be an empty-handed witch hunt which will put more egg on the face of the GOP. laugh True, things need be corrected; but there wasn't any covert conspiracy by the Obama administration. I think Charles Krauthammer was right and they should've backed away from this until I got ALL the facts. But they are so rushed to judgment and to find anything to condemn Obama. ... and it's always the worst thing next to the apocalypse. How many times can they cry wolf?

The same is happening with the Benghazi investigation; it looks like there maybe been a dispute between the State Department and the CIA, read turf wars. This was the same type of problem they had with tracking the 9/11 hijackers and was not corrected when home security was created. They should have lumped the FBI and CIA into one agency.

I just hope the GOP keeps digging the hole bigger and deeper! wink

Posted by: Leslie

Re: IRS - 05/17/13 09:55 AM

No surprise on either front. Will not stop the "thugs" from slamming away at flies with hand grenades. Their m.o. is to throw read meat to the eternally starving rabid right. Now the r.r. believes, along with coming for their guns, forcing health care down their throats, cannot keep us safe (Benghazi) etc. that Obama is spying and specifically targeting them re tax free status.These lies become their facts. Mission Accomplished.
Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/17/13 10:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
.... from slamming away at flies with hand grenades. ....

I like that analogy ! nice one ! grin
Posted by: garyW

Re: IRS - 05/21/13 02:05 PM


Source of the IRS coverup: Darrel Issa (R-Assclown)

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/en...s-investigation

laugh


Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/21/13 02:52 PM

Well in his defense (kinda), you don't blow these things immediately - they could be ongoing investigations to see how deep and widespread the infractions are... that doesn't mean conspiracy cause you don't take it to the MSM immediately - that's just good "police" work to let the investigators work all the details out before announcing it.

That said, I'm glad it's Issa, otherwise Fox would scream BO coverup !! sick

I really feel bad about Moore, OK; but at least the MSM focus is off Benghazi and the IRS for a while ! frown
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: IRS - 05/21/13 04:01 PM

What did Issa know and when did he know it?

Is he just a TPINO (the TP version of a RINO), or a full-scale RINO?

IMPEACH DARRELL ISSA!!
Posted by: steveg

Re: IRS - 05/22/13 03:14 PM

Deep deep doo-doo. Hate to say this, but the WH handling of this has yet to pass the smell test. And now this. Not good at all.
Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/23/13 06:57 PM

Someone called this political guerrilla warfare ... isn't that what the GOP has been doing with many citizens voting rights the past 3 years ... esp. those left leaning ? NOT excusing it, but lets look at the whole pile of bovine caca !! wink

AND GW took the 5th many times when asked troublesome questions... which we know he outright LIED about many touchy things his band of thugs did !
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: IRS - 05/26/13 05:12 PM

You keep forgetting - They don't need fact checkers! crazy
Posted by: DLC

Re: IRS - 05/26/13 06:46 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
You keep forgetting - They don't need fact checkers! crazy

Is that a fact ?? crazy

laugh
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: IRS - 05/27/13 03:14 AM

They need transparency what Obama preaches all the time.