- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
No, no, why would you hold back?
Please tell us why Obama is wrong on this, no problems at IRS, just keep on keepin' on.
Business as usual because there are no abuses or wrong doing.
And go ahead and keep posting irrelevant stuff. Oh, and please with the "warnings". "This is your only warning." Try not to be so full of yourself, it is a bit laughable.
They were still able to act as a non-profit group while waiting the approval of the IRS.
Yet you are still wallowing in Obama worship defending the IRS. Nothing more needs to be said
You ignore the mountains of evidence that disprove your claim and think because 1 Democrat org was denied a claim for whatever reason, that this somehow absolves harassment and intimidation of private citizens based upon their political views.
This is why Big Government liberalism needs to be opposed. People like you never think it's big enough and when that power is abused and Government is used by liberals to harass and intimidate, people like you fall into goosestep behind it defending it.
The issue isn't the tax exempt status.
The commisioner testified that he was pretty sure that there was a significant increase. Maybe there wasn't? Maybe the numbers are wrong? Unsure..
Yes and no. It's politically motivated because the 501(c)4 section explicitly prohibits the organization from being primarily political. When idiot groups have overtly political names, they should get more scrutiny as they are already putting up a big red flag that they are potentially violating the 501(c)4 laws.
The IRS did the same thing the IDF does at its borders and ports. People who look suspicious get more scrutiny. Putting an overtly political name on an application for a status that explicitly prohibits primary political activity should get you more scrutiny.
Well, I would go with the impression that Obama knew all along. Considering he fired an IG who was investigating his Buddy. Once they Connect Obama to Walpin. He wont be able to say he didn't know anything. IMO that is. Well some others too.
She said she hadn't revealed the information sooner, because she was never asked. But just two days before the ABA conference, Lerner was specifically asked about the investigation.
Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., asked her if she could "comment briefly on the status on the IRS investigation into these political not-for-profits."
She said: "Well there's a questionnaire that began this discussion and there's also a questionnaire out there that is seeking info from 501 c3,4,5 organizations."
Crowley called her answer evasive.
"The bottom line is you cannot lie to Congress, and you cannot be evasive, you cannot try to mislead Congress," he said.
In the 1990's, Lerner also served as chief of enforcement at the Federal Elections Commission.
Under her direction, the FEC undertook the largest enforcement action in its history -- suing the Christian Coalition for violating campaign laws. The Christian Coalition won, but in one deposition, FEC lawyers asked a defendant if televangelist Pat Robertson prayed for him.
Lerner is represented by lawyer William W. Taylor, who is noted for winning a dismissal of all charges against former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn in a high-profile sexual assault case.
They searched out groups who had names with "Tea Party", "Patriots", "9/12", etc... in it. Gee, you think there was bias? I guess the head of the IRS doesn't agree with you, that they didn't go far enough, he just resigned.
Even though 132 members of Congress sent former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman letters about the IRS targeting of conservative groups, Shulman reiterated Wednesday that he did not have the full story until the inspector general’s report came out.
“In the two years that this targeting was taking place, did any member of Congress contact you? Write you? About this particular subject? Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan asked during a House Oversight hearing. “Did you get letters from Congress?”
Jordan explained that based on documents from the IRS, 132 different members of Congress contacted Shulman over the two year period the IRS was targeting conservative groups about the tax exemption issue.
Jordan pointed out to Shulman that there had been 42 news stories about potential IRS targeting in that two-year time frame as well.
“So here is what everyone wants to know: You’ve got 132 members of the United States Congress contacting you about this issue, 42 news stories about this issue in the time period in question, and you never checked it out?. You never researched it? I mean, are you sure you’re being square with us today, Mr. Shulman?”
“I am absolutely telling you the truth today,” Shulman said.
Jordan also delved into the number of times Shulman visited the White House.
“One hundred and eighteen times you were at the White House, 132 Members of Congress contact you about this information, 42 major news stories about this very subject and you told Congress a year ago, ‘I can give you assurances nothing is going on, everything is wonderful, we’re not targeting conservative groups,’” Jordan said. “That is why the American people are like, ‘This is unbelievable.’”
That doesn't necessarily mean that Obama knew everything about what the IRS was doing. President doesn't have all of the time in the world to know what every department is doing. I find it incredibly amusing that people who bash the Federal government as a giant monstrosity (which it is) find it easy to think that the President knows everything about every part of government and what they're doing. Hello, you just argued the government is so huge, but then argue the most busy man on the planet has time to know what every department is doing. Makes no sense.
The same people who defended Bush against the idiotic leftist claims that Bush knew everything are now making the same arguments against Obama. Seems some partisans aren't as different as they'd like to believe.
Sure the IG issue looks dirty, but could be an issue of cleaning house from prior Presidential appointments. Still bad, but considering that Obama basically failed to stop the investigation and his friend did pay it back, kind of a crappy job at a political firing.
Well my point was Obama knew that he was dictating the change of direction. He won in 2008. Was getting his people into place. While always going after the Repubs. So yeah he was cleaning house. Plus setting the tone for the change up. His Administration. Which his people knew his agenda.
Also yeah it was a crappy firing but Obama didn't fail to stop the investigation.....he just came in on the end of it, after the IG had already made its discovery and findings of The Mayor of Sacramento. Which naturally with the Media Coverage and Grassley being aware, Johnson would do the Right thing and pay back the money.
You didn't think that The Mayor of Sacramento would be highlighted in National Coverage and just think he could walk away from the issue.....now did you? That he could say screw it and not pay the money back.....Right? Kinda Hard for Obama to stop what he knew was being reported to the media and Walpin. That would look like direct interference into an Investigation. Which is why Obama waited until it concluded to make his move. Which again shows he is aware of things in the beginning of 2010. At least with the IRS and this issue.
My thinking is he doesn't know what was going down with the Justice Dept. That falls on Holder and the Democrats. Like Schumer, Welch, and any other Democrats that were sending letters and Emails to the IRS over it. I would even check those Pol's phone records to see if calls were made. Course I would play it fair and go after any Repubs that were trying to do it to the Democrats.
Which to me.....getting rid of the Two party system. Just seems more and more like the Right thing to do. Then maybe we wont have to worry as much about such an Issue.
Well, not all Republicans. Gates stuck around.
The problem with this is it make Obama look stupid. He not only fails to save his friend, but he also makes it look like a politically motivated firing. At the point he entered, it was already too late. Is Obama really that dumb as to get involved in something he likely knows he can't change? I don't know.
But at the same time, entering that late means he can't get anything decent out of this deal. He either enters early and gets a political election fight, or he enters late, fails to do anything useful and gets a smear. This is lose lose. Best thing to do would be to stay out. But merely being aware of his friend being investigated doesn't mean he knows what the rest of the IRS is up to. Even after the Republican cuts, it's still large.
Possibly. That's a reasonable assumption.
Well, didn't Mason and Washington both warn against having political parties?
I see almost no one discussing PACs, Citizens' United, the actual Code and tax experts for years saying it's being abused.
Looks like a section of the community really doesn't give a **** about what was actually going on and why. They're just here to bash.
And their complete and absolute silence on the Bush administration's objectively worse abuses via the IRS is quite telling.
Thats because its off topic.
Discuss this topic. It gets tiresome that every abuse is met with Booooossssshhh. The other guy did it too is not a defense, its a lack of one.
The code as you like to put it, was circumvented by special scrutiny to groups with key words---a policy that was later change.
The current law is what it is. All a group is required to do is be within the law. Further, there doesnt seem to be a lot of effort in Washington to change it.
The problem became that only one side of the political spectrum got extra scrutiny based upon naming.
What would happen if social or justice were included in those buzz words for flagging?
Thats right, liberals would be out for blood. I guess you are right, a section doesnt give a crap about what was going on and why.
FYI, the Pasadena church said JC would endorse Gore over Bush in a sermon. Totally apolitical dontchaknow.
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the Pasadena Church for being against the Iraq war?
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the Greenpeace because several Bush Donors didn't like Greenpeace?
Where is the outrage from our "conservative" members when the Bush Administration siced the IRS on the NAACP because several Bush Donors didn't like Greenpeace?
At least here, there is ACTUAL OBJECTIVE REASONS to go after overtly politically named groups applying for status that is prohibited from primarily engaging in political activity.
None of you stand a chance here against me. Get out of the thread before I make an even bigger mockery of you.
ignore when their party did objectively worse
one side was stupid enough to put politically overt names on applications
Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman dropped this bit of advice during his testimony: targeted conservative groups could have just not applied for tax-exempt status at all.
All they had to do, Shulman told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was act like they were already a 501(c)(4) and then file their tax return that way.
“There’s no need to go through the application process,” Shulman said in an exchange with Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). “You can start up operations as a 501(c)(4) and file your return at the end of the year.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?