Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112
Results 166 to 180 of 180

Thread: IRS Apologizes for Targeting Conservative Groups

  1. #166
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,506

    Ignore User
    Now you know why I don't trust management.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

 

  • #167
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User
    The fact remains that the IRS's policies under Obama also made it so that actually non-partisan 501(c)3 applications got slow-tracked as well...often with no status determination ever, just like the tricorns bitched about; lawyers in the FLOSS community were, even before this "scandal" broke, advising projects to join existing "umbrella" organizations like the Software Freedom Conservancy, the Open Source Initiative, the Apache Software Foundation, and Software in the Public Interest so they could accept charitable donations via membership in those bodies. And these attorneys did not just advise clients to this effect privately, but to rooms full of people at public conferences like LFCS in San Francisco.

    'Cause, you know, if you need to caution a bunch of redneck conservatives that the gummint's out to get them, you do it at an open source conference in Moscone Center.

    AFAICT as soon as Obama came into office the IRS starting doing a lot more scrutiny across the board.

    Tea Party's bad luck that they waited until there was a Black Democrat in the White House to get organized. If they were disproportionately affected, it could well have been because they were a disproportionate number of new applications under chapter 501(c).

    On the other hand, it's so unlike right-wingers to screech that they're being mistreated.
    Last edited by Calamari Face; November 22nd, 2014 at 03:01 AM.



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

  • #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    How very VK of you.
    Something similar is apparently happening in reverse up here. Know what? Don't care.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    How very VK of you.
    Good call. I care about this as little as you expect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Fine, I'll say it because it's obvious -- VK is 100% right

  • #170
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamari Face View Post
    The fact remains that the IRS's policies under Obama also made it so that actually non-partisan 501(c)3 applications got slow-tracked as well..
    You know that claim was disproved ages ago, right? You know, after the The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found the IRS had in fact been targeting the Tea Party, and before Lerner stopped talking and started taking the 5th? Before Miller, Grant, and Lerner all resigned? Naw, of course not. Why would CF pay attention after he's drawn a conclusion?

    So that you are caught up, it was disclosed that of the already-existing nonprofits that were flagged for IRS surveillance (including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites, and any other publicly available information), 83% were conservative. And, of the groups that the IRS selected for audit, 100% were conservative. And, that this wad due to targeting specific keywords for Conservative groups, while Liberal groups were green-lit (sometimes intentionally pulled back out of potential observation). The specific word list was: “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” “9-12,” “'Take Back the Country,” or “We the People.” They later expanded the list to include Torganizations that: (a) address such issues as government spending, government debt, and taxes; (b) promote the use of education, advocacy, and lobbying to “make America a better place to live”; or (c) criticize how the country is being run by the Obama administration.

    I mean fuck dude it's right there in the first post of this thread from 2013, when the IRS admitted they had targeted Conservatives, apologized, and tried to blame local Cincinnati officials.
    Last edited by Mistwell; November 25th, 2014 at 02:32 AM.
    I like hats.

  • #171
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Link

    "’[The Treasury is] fessing up that it found some 2,500 documents potentially showing that the IRS shared taxpayer returns with the White House..."

    "Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is now looking into “potential liability” that his tax aides broke laws in sharing taxpayer information with the White House."

    Can someone here justify the IRS sharing confidential taxpayer returns with the White House? Does anyone here think that is OK? The only reason we even know this happened is because a Conservative group filed a FOIA request and paid to fight denials of that request until finally they got the IRS to admit what they'd done. Though, despite administration promises to hand all the docs over they are now reversing course and still refusing to hand over most of the docs, causing further Court fights.
    I like hats.

  • #172
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,092

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    Link

    "’[The Treasury is] fessing up that it found some 2,500 documents potentially showing that the IRS shared taxpayer returns with the White House..."

    "Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is now looking into “potential liability” that his tax aides broke laws in sharing taxpayer information with the White House."

    Can someone here justify the IRS sharing confidential taxpayer returns with the White House? Does anyone here think that is OK? The only reason we even know this happened is because a Conservative group filed a FOIA request and paid to fight denials of that request until finally they got the IRS to admit what they'd done. Though, despite administration promises to hand all the docs over they are now reversing course and still refusing to hand over most of the docs, causing further Court fights.
    Your racist; I don't care. /Greyone/PWD/VK

  • #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Your racist; I don't care. /Greyone/PWD/VK
    Topic check-in: Nope, still don't care.
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I believe the hammer locking back is PWD's trigger warning.

  • #174
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,092

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    Topic check-in: Nope, still don't care.
    I had you covered.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #175
    Shouldn't this whole IRS targeting crap be as dead as Benghazi by now? Especially since it had no real impact.

    Move on to...I don't know, the Senate confirmation of Obama's completely unqualified (but big campaign contributor) ambassadors? Nah, I guess if you can't sue/impeach/prosecute/repeal/defund it, it's not worth mentioning. Carry on.
    Fiat justitia ruat coelum.

  • #176
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,092

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Advocatus Diaboli View Post
    Shouldn't this whole IRS targeting crap be as dead as Benghazi by now? Especially since it had no real impact.

    Move on to...I don't know, the Senate confirmation of Obama's completely unqualified (but big campaign contributor) ambassadors? Nah, I guess if you can't sue/impeach/prosecute/repeal/defund it, it's not worth mentioning. Carry on.
    Why should it be dead, again? Any doubt about the abuse if the IRS should be a bipartisan issue if high importance. Hell, if it was W in office, there would be howls for blood over this.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #177
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Advocatus Diaboli View Post
    Shouldn't this whole IRS targeting crap be as dead as Benghazi by now? Especially since it had no real impact.
    You think "Officials using the IRS to target political foes" has no impact on the nation? No implications for future Administrations?
    I like hats.

  • #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Why should it be dead, again? Any doubt about the abuse if the IRS should be a bipartisan issue if high importance. Hell, if it was W in office, there would be howls for blood over this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistwell View Post
    You think "Officials using the IRS to target political foes" has no impact on the nation? No implications for future Administrations?
    501(c)(4) organizations aren't required to apply for IRS approval to be tax-exempt to begin with, so the worst case scenario is that the "targeted" organizations might be denies something they didn't need; but in fact not one of those organization was denied tax exempt status between April 2010 and April 2012.

    It's not quite "no harm, no foul" but since none of the "Tea Party"/"patriot"/"9/12" organizations can show they lost anything, I don't see why this needed to be much more than a public airing/shaming of the White House/IRS, and then move on. Lois Lerner has been gone for over a year, a couple of other IRS officials whose names I forget, resigned even before her. Almost a year ago the FBI announced it found no evidence warranting federal criminal charges. It's been four years. What is to be gained by beating this to death for two more?
    Fiat justitia ruat coelum.

  • #179
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,092

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Advocatus Diaboli View Post
    501(c)(4) organizations aren't required to apply for IRS approval to be tax-exempt to begin with, so the worst case scenario is that the "targeted" organizations might be denies something they didn't need; but in fact not one of those organization was denied tax exempt status between April 2010 and April 2012.
    Wow, a twofer on misrepresentation without outright lying.

    Firstly, no, you don't have to be approved to operate as a 501c4 organization, but that's only a fraction if the story. If you aren't approved, you're operating at risk if the IRS determining at a later time you font qualify, and then having to pay penalties. Further, donors will also have to repay taxes on their contributions, and possibly penalties, so mist will not donate to nonapproved 501c4s. Not having to be approved dies mean that you're in the clear or even able to operate as intended without approval.

    Second, while none were denied, almost none were approved, and many were heavily intimidated by the onerous investigation process. This is akin to saying no one died while they were beaten.
    It's not quite "no harm, no foul" but since none of the "Tea Party"/"patriot"/"9/12" organizations can show they lost anything, I don't see why this needed to be much more than a public airing/shaming of the White House/IRS, and then move on. Lois Lerner has been gone for over a year, a couple of other IRS officials whose names I forget, resigned even before her. Almost a year ago the FBI announced it found no evidence warranting federal criminal charges. It's been four years. What is to be gained by beating this to death for two more?
    What say you about Nixon?
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #180
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,396

    Ignore User
    Years later we find out it was true...and McCain was one of the guys behind it. Oh and McCain publicly lied about it, saying at the time, "Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” "
    I like hats.

  • Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •