Now the IRS is palying Obama politics

Did anyone ever consider that these Right-wing groups routinely cross the lines when it comes to their tax-free status? You have guidelines as a tax-free organization and it is the IRS's responsibility to monitor any group not acting within their tax-free status.

 

Little Joe, don't be like this idiot claiming that FOX News is to blame. You know it's not true and you appear the fool when you keep parroting that BS:

View attachment 1630

 

http://freebeacon.com/obamas-irs/

 

And, of course, you are the judge and jury of what counts, right? And I will bet that does not include Holder, GM, Fast & Furious, Fisker, Indiana voter registration, Solyndra, Holder, Behghazi, Labor Relations Board, Holder, Chrysler, Beacon Power, GITMO, First Solar, Holder, Ener1, Rezko, Abound Solar, Wright, Holder, IRS, etc. and so on!

 

You mean like Mediamatters?

 

Now if you want to talk about punishing your political enemies, lets talk about the Bush Administration outing a CIA agent, and then commuting this convicted felon's sentence and restoring his voting rights. This is what Republicans do to their political enemies. When the agent's husband didn't play ball, they outed his wife and then let the guy off the hook that acted for Cheney. You clowns are so two-faced.

 

And that is the best you can come up with? Oh, and commuting sentences, have you ever heard of http://www.justice.gov/opa/commutationspaocht.htm? I seem to remember another name tied to that scandal. Holder, maybe?

 

Excerpt from the transcript of Fox News Sunday May 12 2013

CHRIS WALLACE: An IRS official acknowledging Friday it gave extra scrutiny to some conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. But a Tea Party official dismissed the agency's apology as not enough. And we're back now with the panel. So, there are some new developments, big, new developments today in the IRS story. An inspector general's report due out in the next few days will report the following. IRS officials knew as early as 2011, not 2012, as previously reported, the agency was targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny and they singled out groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriot" or "9/12" project in their name. Kim, how big a deal?

KIM STRASSEL: This is a very big deal, not only because of what you just said in this inspector general report is going to go against things that the IRS itself said. You know, last year we had the commissioner of the IRS come and testify under oath before Congress that nobody was being targeted. So, one thing will be whether or not this ID report does say who knew what and when and what actions were taken and that's a very important thing. But I also think that this is interesting in the bigger context. Remember, this is not an isolated incident. We also had in the middle of the campaign, for instance, the IRS sending out letters to donors, to 501Cs saying, you know, you could be subject to retroactive taxation. This also caused a big brouhaha (ph), again, IRS blamed it on lower level employees. But some of the things are beginning to add up and paint a very fishy picture.
What Strassel is referring to: Strassel: THE PRESIDENT HAS A LIST
EXCERPT:

(So... Obama used "his list" against Republican donors in the 2012 election)

Back to Chris Wallace etal:
WALLACE: You know, what's interesting here, is that conservative groups started complaining early last year, 2012, about the fact that they were getting these really intrusive demands for information, including information about donors, which they're not supposed to have to give to the IRS, and -- but it now turns out that this practice was going on at least six, eight, nine months before as early as June of 2011. As Kim points out, last year the then-IRS commissioner flatly denied it. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUGLAS SHULMAN, IRS COMMISSIONER: There's absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens when people apply for 501C4.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Congressman Kucinich, now they admit there was targetting.

DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, some of these aren't passing the straight face test. You have to look at the irony here, Chris. Some of the letters -- some of the words that we use for profiling, the political affiliation, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, patriot, these are all things that Americans celebrate, and now they're being turned into a negative where IRS goes after people based on their commitment to those things. Look, you know, I am a liberal Democrat. I don't -- I'm not someone who has celebrated Tea Party politics, but we cannot -- this is not tolerable. We cannot have a condition in America where people's politics are the basis for IRS attacks.

WALLACE: Do you believe the IRS statements by that level manager so far, and that's the only thing we've really seen, that this was just a bureaucratic foul-up by a bunch of people in the tax exempt -- you know, the organizations apply for tax exempt status in Cincinnati that this didn't go up any higher?

KUCINICH: The tone is set from the top. That's the problem. We have to look at here. The tone is set. We are in a hyper-partisan, intensely partisan condition in Washington, the polarization is damaging to our country. And we're seeing another symptom of it here.

WALLACE: So, you think this was political targeting?

KUCINICH: How could it not be?

Now - Juan Williams Liberal columnist (formerly at NPR):

WALLACE: Juan?

JUAN WILLIAMS: I think unlike Benghazi, this is not scandal mongering. This is a real problem. And you cannot politicize and politically intimidate your opponents by using the IRS. I mean for those of us who have been around, this is Nixon. This is going back to Johnson. There have been allegations throughout American history but, you know, this is the most pernicious kind of tool that could be used against a political opponent and it should not be. Now, let me say I don't think there's any evidence that it goes beyond those low- level people thus far. Well, we all will have to see within the Inspector General's report. But the fact is that there are some questions to be raised in this era about these 501'c D3 (ph) groups. You look at them very likely ...

WALLACE: Is that advocacy groups?

WILLIAMS: Yes.
WALLACE: ... applying for tax exempt status?

WILLIAMS: Right. And it seems to me, these are -- they are applying for tax exempt status as nonprofits. Well, they're highly politicized groups. I mean, you know, I've personally been attacked by likes of Media Matters. How are they a 501c's? That's craziness. American Crossroads, that Bill said, that's running the ad on Hillary Clinton. I think, by the way, that hurts the idea that this is not being simply a politicized attack on the Democrats, Obama and Clinton. But again, how are they not a highly political group and why are they suddenly, you know, eligible for this tax exemption? And much of the Tea Party's efforts stand from direct mail efforts and, again, that could be why they said if you have Tea Party in your title, Patriot in your title, but it just comes too close to the nerve of political intimidation and it cannot be tolerated.

 

Of course they do - what's good for the good is good for the gander. There are a number of 501C liberal organizations that are viciously partisan in the public sphere.

What these groups get is tax free donations which makes their operations more efficient in soliciting donations. I give to the TPM (three different groups - the TPMs are made up of a lot of people like me, retired with time on our hands who want three things: adherence to the constitution, fiscal responsiblity, and limited government {meaning federalism})

As I said above, I donate, and they warn me that my doation is not tax deductible, so the tax benefit applies only to the 501C.

 

Welcome to the forum, Urbs! You're a very welcome addition and I hope you find the topics interesting! We have some very lively discussions here at times.

 

It's not a conspiracy; that's a red herring. It's a simple abuse of power, and to the average citizen, the IRS is their worse nightmare.

As Dennis Kucinich said today on FNS: "The tone is set from the top. That's the problem we have to look at here. The tone is set."

Try to keep it real, eh Joe.
It's hard to imagine that a lone bureaucrat would think doing that would've been a "career enhancement". And Cincinnati is not just your ordinary IRS field office.

That office handles tax matters for 25 states, from New England to the Mississippi, and its enforcement area casts a wide net, including Wisconsin, home of David Koch.

 

Thanks Coin. I appreciate the welcome. I hope I can add something useful here from time to time.

 

You two need to refresh your marching orders. When was the last time Obama and the right were unified against the left? In his new conference today;
"If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. And there's no place for it, and they have to be held fully accountable. Because the IRS as an independent agency requires absolute integrity, and people have to have confidence that they're ... applying the laws in a nonpartisan way."

 

Sorry, no innuendo or accusations. Just the truth, Little Joe, just the truth:

IRS timeline shows DC officials in loop on Tea Party targeting

​

Newly obtained documents show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012 and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread. ​

The additional details were provided in a timeline from the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, based on briefings by the inspector general's office investigating the case. Together, they challenged the agency's initial claims that the practice of flagging conservative groups for additional scrutiny was contained to low-level staffers at a Cincinnati office. ​

​

The timeline shows that Steven Miller, the acting IRS chief who at the time was a deputy commissioner, was briefed on the practice on May 3, 2012. Despite this briefing, Miller wrote letters to members of Congress at least twice to explain the process of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status without disclosing that Tea Party groups had been targeted. On July 25, 2012, Miller testified before the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee, but again did not mention the additional scrutiny -- despite being asked about it. ​

​

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., blasted Miller over the revelation. ​

​

"It is almost inconceivable to imagine that top officials at the IRS knew conservative groups were being targeted but chose to willfully mislead the Committee's investigation into this practice," he said in a statement. ​

​

Further, the timeline shows that managers, after compiling a list of Tea Party and other cases, decided to send their report "up the chain in Washington" in April 2010. The timeline says this report was shared with two executives in Washington, including Lois G. Lerner. Lerner heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations and is the official who first revealed the controversial practice on Friday.​

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/irs-timeline-shows-dc-officials-in-loop-on-tea-party-targeting/#ixzz2TGwlHZwU​

 

We're going to leave the group-think to you and your ilk. You guys already finish each others sentences. Independent minds don't need a posse of nodding idiots behind them to reinforce their beliefs. That's why you are Righties. You need the group-think in order to function at all. You prove it every day in this forum. How sad for you.

 

Group think with Obama? You cannot really be serious!

 

Feeble attempt, Little Joe. You probably don't pay taxes, but so you'll know, The Secretary of the Treasury (who reports directly to Obama, by the way) heads the IRS:

View attachment 1631

 

I assume you intended to write rebuttal? One must reign in his own stupidity when attempting to make another look foolish, wouldn't you say?

 

Funny! A persons written content is subject to ridicule because of a sp error like that? I don't, by the way, use a spell check; I'm on my own.