IRS targeting included liberal groups

[Mithros]

IRS targeting included liberal groups - CNN.com

The Internal Revenue Service targeted liberal groups as well as conservatives seeking tax-exempt status, a Democratic congressman charged on Monday after the agency acknowledged the inappropriate practice continued until last month.

Rep. Sander Levin said the term "progressives" was included on IRS screening lists of applicants for tax-exempt status made available to Congress on Monday.
It was the first confirmation that the "Be on the Lookout" or BOLO lists used criteria targeting liberal groups after an inspector general's report made public last month said the IRS had used words such as "tea party" to determine possible extra scrutiny.​

Can we finally stop pretending that the IRS "scandal" is actually a scandal? The IRS gave extra scrutiny to political groups applying for 501c(4) status. Political groups should be 527's, not 501c's. What we've dealt with so far is a concerted effort by Republicans to selectively release information, giving the appearance of a scandal.

 

[Samhain]

Why haven't progressive groups complained about issues applying for 501c(4) status?

 

[Tucker Case]

Why haven't progressive groups complained about issues applying for 501c(4) status?

I guessing it's because liberals don't understand taxes.

 

[Redress]

I guessing it's because liberals don't understand taxes.

I am guessing is is because they just don't whine as much.

 

[d0gbreath]

We don't understand taxes.

 

[Mithros]

I guessing it's because liberals don't understand taxes.

I'm not sure how any reasonably person could read the tax code and come to the conclusion that a political group belongs as a 501c4. Political groups should be 527's regulated by the FEC, not 501c's regulated by the IRS.

So maybe it's because liberals aren't as eager to game the system?

(love the avatar btw...)

 

[Tucker Case]

I am guessing is is because they just don't whine as much.

That's true, they certainly whine less. Except when a republican is in office, but lately they have been the less whiny group.

 

[Tucker Case]

I'm not sure how any reasonably person could read the tax code and come to the conclusion that a political group belongs as a 501c4. Political groups should be 527's regulated by the FEC, not 501c's regulated by the IRS.

So maybe it's because liberals aren't as eager to game the system?

(love the avatar btw...)

I'm not sure how a reasonable person can read the tax code at all. :lol: It's like being stuck in the "begat" section of the bible.

 

[Mithros]

I'm not sure how a reasonable person can read the tax code at all. :lol: It's like being stuck in the "begat" section of the bible.

Okay.. You've got me there.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'd have to say this seems like a pretty "convenient" development, considering the IRS had apologized for its targetting of conservative groups and the White House had also apologized but said it had no part in the "scandal".

It's pretty simple, really - I'd assume that an organization whose entire enterprise is based on numbers would be able to quickly prepare a report that indicates the numbers of "conservative" groups that requested 501 status in the run up to the 2012 election, what number were granted status, and what number were required to perform a pretzel twist of privacy invasion in order to have their applications considered. Likewise, they should be able to provide similar numbers in their report for "liberal" groups applying and affected. Pretty easy for the American public to review that information and decide for themselves who's telling the truth and who's manipulating information for political gain.

For the supposedly "most transparent administration in history", these guys sure like to hide behind rocks until they're ferreted out.

 

[Fenton]

I am guessing is is because they just don't whine as much.

That was a lie Redress.

The recent claim Progressives were targeted.

The word " progressive " might have been added to the list but staffers were told to pass them through for approval while Tea Party Orginizations were held back for more " scrutiny".

Maybe you could name. Progressive group that was denied ?

So that aside, if the targeting was more wide spread why did Lois Lerner lie and say it was just rogue agents in Cinci ?

Why did she plead the Fifth ?

The IRS just told you the targeting lasted longer and was more wide spread but they cant find evidence of worng doing.

Do you guys like being lied to ?

 

[pbrauer]

I am guessing liberal groups don't have similar sounding names like conservatives do like "Tea Party."

 

[sawyerloggingon]

These are results of the IRS investigating itself so I am highly suspicious of their findings. I think there will be some clarification of this claim coming soon.

 

[Fenton]

I'd have to say this seems like a pretty
"convenient" development, considering the IRS had apologized for its targetting of conservative groups and the White House had also apologized but said it had no part in the "scandal".

It's pretty simple, really - I'd assume that an organization whose entire enterprise is based on numbers would be able to quickly prepare a report that indicates the numbers of "conservative" groups that requested 501 status in the run up to the 2012 election, what number were granted status, and what number were required to perform a pretzel twist of privacy invasion in order to have their applications considered. Likewise, they should be able to provide similar numbers in their report for "liberal" groups applying and affected. Pretty easy for the American public to review that information and decide for themselves who's telling the truth and who's manipulating information for political gain.

For the supposedly "most transparent administration in history", these guys sure like to hide behind rocks until they're ferreted out.

The Weekly Standard has a story this morning that contradicta the IRSs new claim.

I cant post the link though. Its on Drudge.

The recent IRS release is a huge lie.

On two other forums I asked the Libs to give me the name of a Progressive group that was denied.

They all named the same group...Lol

 

[Jredbaron96]

What the hell IRS, we hade a deal!

 

[CanadaJohn]

I am guessing liberal groups don't have similar sounding names like conservatives do like "Tea Party."

True enough - liberals are far more deceitful and crafty, using and abusing the English language in order to trick the naive and unsuspecting into supporting them.

The term "progressive" comes to mind, to prove my point.

 

[Fenton]

These are results of the IRS
investigating itself so I am highly suspicious of their findings. I think there will be some clarification of this claim coming soon.

Do me a solid and go to Drudge and read and post the link that Contradicts the IRSs new lie.

That Progressive groups were passed on through while Tea party groups were held back.

Thanks.

 

[Redress]

That was a lie Redress.

The recent claim Progressives were targeted.

The word " progressive " might have been added to the list but staffers were told to pass them through for approval while Tea Party Orginizations were held back for more " scrutiny".

Maybe you could name. Progressive group that was denied ?

So that aside, if the targeting was more wide spread why did Lois Lerner lie and say it was just rogue agents in Cinci ?

Why did she plead the Fifth ?

The IRS just told you the targeting lasted longer and was more wide spread but they cant find evidence of worng doing.

Do you guys like being lied to ?

It was a joke along the lines of Tucker's joke. Might want to think before you accuse people of lying.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Do me a solid and go to Drudge and read and post the link that Contradicts the IRSs new lie.

That Progressive groups were passed on through while Tea party groups were held back.

Thanks.

I knew there was more to the story. This CIA claim has just made them look even more corrupt.

'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online

 

[Fenton]

It was a joke along the lines of Tucker's joke.
Might want to think before you accuse people of lying.

No redress, I'm accusing the Administration of lying, look at Sawyers post.

I just can't figure why you guys put up with it ?

 

[rocket88]

Typically, the hacks are coming out. "This new piece of evidence is a lie! It doesn't fit in with my preconcieved notion that I'm being persecuted!"

Innteresting evidence though. The question is, will Issa listen to it or is he more interested in theater than the truth?

 

[Redress]

I knew there was more to the story. This CIA claim has just made them look even more corrupt.

'Lookout List' Not Much Broader Than Originally Thought, Contrary to Reports | National Review Online

No redress, I'm accusing the Administration of lying, look at Sawyers post.

I just can't figure why you guys put up with it ?

You use National Review as a source, then ask othets why they put up with being lied too? LoLz!

 

[Fenton]

You use National Review as a source, then ask othets why they put up with being lied too? LoLz!

The IRS just said it's targeting was widespread, but Lerner stated it was rogue agents initially in Cinci and she conferred with the lying perm head IRS Commisioner to plant a question.

The IRS admitted its scope was more widespread but there is no evidence "anyone did anything wrong"

But your left to attacking the source.

You are the one's being laughed at.

 

[Blue_State]

A simplified tax code and this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I would prefer that the word progressive was in the search. I would hope it would bring us all together to reform the IRS monster.

 

[Mithros]

A simplified tax code and this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I would prefer that the word progressive was in the search. I would hope it would bring us all together to reform the IRS monster.

A simplified income tax code wouldn't help. Non-profits are a completely different entity.

What would help is if the IRS denied 501c4 status to all groups that weren't entirely dedicated to social welfare (as stated in the law). Then these political groups would be moved from 501c4 status subject to IRS regulations,, into 527 status regulated by the FEC.

(Also, it's good that they used progressive even though progressive is a terrible search word for political activism. If you look through the list of approved groups you'll see many progressive baptist churches, and progressive medical groups. None of which have anything to do with politics.)