Ask Me Help Desk - The IRS scandal

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I added on to my last comment to illustrate the difference between the Tea Party groups and the factions Madison was referring to.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Just because everyone is gaming the system doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it. That's the reason to fix the problem.

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 Tuttyd

Tom, the Tea party is heavily funded and controlled by a particular faction.

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 tomder55

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 .

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 .

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.

Guess its not that great being a target, huh?

Hmmmmm!!

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

We can start with fixing the tax system and eliminating the IRS.

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athos

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 ?

Your theory fails by virtue of the truth.

Republicans Versus Democrats - Why Some People Give More To A Charity

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

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 ?

Your theory fails by virtue of the truth.

Athos did not say Republicans don't give to or give as much to charity. Please reread his post.

For CDAD---

I didn't say anything remotely like you claimed I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

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?

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 Athos

for CDAD---

I didn't say anything remotely like you claimed I did.

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 .
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.