Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, the Tea party is heavily funded and controlled by a particular faction.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, the Tea party is heavily funded and controlled by a particular faction.
Budget cuts cause long wait times on IRS help line - Apr. 9, 2013
IRS Eliminated 5,000 Jobs in Past Year Amid Budget Cuts - Businessweek
I echo what Ex has been saying. How do you cut budgets and expect more service? Whipping the slaves harder won't work.
Seems to me the change that's needed is a FULL disclosure law of donors. No more secret money for elections by any one.
Yeah like that is going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Fraud found in Obama's online donations | The Daily Caller
Obama Accepting Untraceable Credit Card Donations
http://www.politisite.com/2012/10/08...it-card-fraud/
Just because everyone is gaming the system doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it. That's the reason to fix the problem.
We can start with fixing the tax system and eliminating the IRS.
This was after the supposed fix from last time. Obama isn't going to fix it. He only wants to gain from the system more then anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
you presume funding = control. It does not .And ,you presume that they are an single organization . I don't know why you do when the whole case against the IRS is that multiple TP groups and chapters were targeted . The tragedy of this whole thing is that the movement got a whole bunch of people involved for the first time in the political process and this is how their government treated them... like they were outcasts to be views with suspicion .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
But they had little or nothing to do with social services or charity. If they did, why they use the blatantly political term "TP" as part of the name?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They should all be investigated. That's why more research needs to be done before we presume they were targeted. I provided proof that left leaning progressive groups were denied tax exempt status. None from the TParty have so far.
Hollering because you were Googled? Typical "victim" mongering from you guys.
That's what minorities say about the hard push for voter ID law changes so close to the election last year. And the young black guys in NY about stop and frisk, and the latinos in Arizona with papers please.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Guess its not that great being a target, huh?
Hmmmmm!!
Hello again, Steve:
We agree.. But, corporations like GE and the Wall Street banks think it's just hunky dory.. Obama is a corporatist. We ain't going to change nothing.Quote:
We can start with fixing the tax system and eliminating the IRS.
Excon
My take on this "scandal" --
After "Citizens United" the apps for 501(c)4 come in hot and heavy.
70,000 applications to be reviewed by a staff of 200-300. So they triage.
Who's more likely to NOT be approved for a tax-exempt category that requires social welfare? The far right? Hardly. They've never heard of social welfare, and, in fact, when they do hear about it, they oppose it. The far left? Absolutely. Social welfare literally DEFINES the far left.
When picking 300 or so (of the 70,000) to review, which group is more likely to be selected? The far right, of course. Especially with names like Tea Party and Patriot. Not always, but most of the time. The liberal far left is far LESS likely to be FRAUDULENTLY claiming they are a social welfare organization.
So why is anyone surprised that about a third of the reviewed applications are "Tea Party types? And why is anyone surprised that the left goes through smoothly?
Think about it. A tempest in a teapot.
Lets test this in real life situations. Your stating that those on the left tend to give more then those on the right to charity ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Your theory fails by virtue of the truth.
Republicans Versus Democrats - Why Some People Give More To A Charity
Athos did not say Republicans don't give to or give as much to charity. Please reread his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
For CDAD---
I didn't say anything remotely like you claimed I did.
They did as much as many of the liberal groups that were rubber stamped .This is about equal protection under the law ;not how the law is being interpreted by the IRS . I'm all for tax reform and removal of the special tax status. But don't tell me it's right that a loose broad definition will be applied to one set of applicants and another tighter standard applied to others based on their political beliefs. That isn't America .That's Hugo Chavez Venezuela tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What if the IRS had targeted 'liberal sounding' organizations under the Bush administration? Charlie Rangel sees the abuse of power here but apparently you do not .Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Using the IRS to target political opponents is authoritarian regardless of the party doing it. The defenders ,including Axelrod are saying the government is too big to control ;and that is exactly the problem .Our supposedly limited government is so limitless in its size, power, and taxing ability that no executive can control it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...1395725.column
To tomder55 --
Your hysteria is showing.
What liberal groups were rubber-stamped? Names, please.
It has nothing to do with "equal protection" - geez, what a stretch - even for you.
The IRS, in this case, applied common sense to fairly review requests for tax exemption. THAT'S THEIR JOB.
Hugo Chavez? Venezuela? Good grief. Get a grip.
Your agenda is so glaringly obvious, it hurts my eyes. Firstly, shame Obama. Secondly, shame the IRS so that a nice, simple flat tax can replace that agency and give more money to the rich, and de-fund social programs.
To tomder55 (2)
If the IRS had gone after liberal organizations under Bush (or Obama) FOR A GOOD REASON, I would support such actions.
In this case, the IRS went after organizations who were possibly NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the law granting tax-exemption.
The Barack H Obama Foundation comes immediately to mind.Quote:
What liberal groups were rubber-stamped? Names, please.
Nice spin... but no... they targeted them because of their name. Even the Emperor's 'Wormtongue' Dan Pfeiffer said on all the morning talk shows today that the IRS actions were indefensible .Quote:
If the IRS had gone after liberal organizations under Bush (or Obama) FOR A GOOD REASON, I would support such actions.
In this case, the IRS went after organizations who were possibly NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the law granting tax-exemption.
Somehow a title like "Tea Party Charities" scares me. It's definitely a lighting rod to check further into its mission and political connections.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
To tomder55 (3) -- For some reason, I don't have the option of quoting a poster..?
That foundation is a 501(c)3 - not a 501(c)4 - and promotes NO political advocacy. If it was rubber-stamped (no evidence that it was) it should not have been.
Drew Ryun tried to get 'Media Trackers' nonprofit status for over a year .So he changed the name to 'Greenhouse Solutions' .His approval came within 3 weeks.
So yeah it was all in the name . Liberal sounding names got less scrutiny . It was definitely an issue of unequal application of the law. Other than the name there was no difference in his organization.
No, non-political titles get less scrutiny, are not lightning rods in the triage system.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You are making this triage system up .
And y'all seem to be under a misconception that 501(c) 4's were the only groups under scrutiny . But that just isn't so .
August 2010
First BOLO [Be On the Lookout] listing issued with criteria listed as “…various local organizations in the Tea Party movement…applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c) 4 .” was in August 2010 .
See pdf :
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...ppendixVII.pdf
The timeline continues :
July 2011
Criteria changed to “Organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4)” based on the concerns the Director, EO, raised in June 2011.
January 2012
Criteria changed to “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement” based on Determinations Unit concerns that the July 2011 criteria was too generic.
May 2012
Criteria changed to “501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit).”
We have also learned that pro-life groups were also targeted . So let's stop the pretend that this was not politically motivated targeting .
Hello again, tom:
People did wrong. They should be fired. I don't know where the scandal is, though. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what the Benghazi scandal is. And, I don't think the AP thing is a scandal, either. You DON'T like whistle-blowers who put our brave servicemen in danger, do you?
excon
And... let's say that the only scrutiny applied to 501(c)4 groups . You would think with all this scrutiny that at least one of these Tea Party groups would've been denied their application . But you can't come up with one.out of the hundreds of applications All you have is that since their name sounded like organizations that did not fit the criteria ,that they should be subject to greater scrutiny than those benevolent liberal groups.
Benghazi will be the lies under testimony. A screwed up foreign policy is not criminal per se unless there is some law I'm not aware of prohibiting the arming of jihadists .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So let me get this straight . Unless there is a clear case of criminal activity ,you don't think policy blunders should be investigated ?
If there is a criminal activity in Benghazi it's because the Obots tried to cover up the facts of the incident ;including under testimony to the various oversight committees... let alone their outright lies to the world ,and the American people.
Hello again, tom:
If given the power and the opportunity to DO stuff like that, some people WILL. They should be fired. If we CHANGE the law/regulation that allows them to do it, then we'll STOP it. To PUT IRS employees into the POSITION of making those decisions in the first place, is a mistake CONGRESS made..Quote:
that they should be subject to greater scrutiny than those benevolent liberal groups.
Are you in favor of changing the law so this won't ever happen again??
Excon
Of course . You know my position on taxes and the power of the IRS. The size of the government makes this type of corruption in the regulatory and enforcement agencies inevitable .
If the population grows and changes shouldn't government grow and change to service the population? As we age and retire, shouldn't we keep up with the needs of an aging population? As the private sector sends good jobs overseas for cheap labor, shouldn't we be helping displaced workers get on their feet?
If political parties want a loophole, shouldn't we investigate them thoroughly? If you keep cutting the budget, and not hire more people then either services slow down, or the service stops.
Even the TParty can be corrupted, and those law abiding citizens that want guns can be too. If you had 20,000 cases to verify, how long would it take you? Or would you demand more help, or more money?
Be honest.
Been catching up some and I'm floored that anyone can defend or dismiss this. This isn't about SCOTUS, loopholes, names that scare you (which seems awfully paranoid) or any other side issue. This is about a jackbooted government agency violating our trust, our rights in targeting political enemies. Not only that but they avoided the power players that can afford to defend themselves, which would have exposed this conspiracy - they used the full force of the U.S. government to harass and intimidate the little guys for daring to be concerned about the direction the country was headed and covered it up until after the election.
This is as clearcut an example of betrayal by our government as it gets, it cannot be excused and shame on anyone that tries.
And the IRS has been doing it since 1959.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Was there a point to that comment?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It is a clear cut example, but that's the whole idea of neo-corporatism.
Federalism is the best way to consolidate a power sharing arrangement. At the moment we have neo-nationalism teamed up with neo-corporatism. The only difference down the track will be that neo-conservatism will team up with neo-corporatism.Nothing will change except a shift in the power sharing arrangement.
I would disagree with Tom. Money does buy power and influence in the political process. The little guys were shut out of the political process as soon as big money backed their grassroots cause.
Yes we disagree on that issue. There are over a thousand independent Tea Party Groups in the country ,most of them unaffiliated with one of the self proclaimed national groups.
And what point would that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That, over the years, BOTH political parties have been subjected to the misinterpretation of the tax law. The original wording was fair and clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:22 AM. |