IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Political Groups In 2012 Ele (1 Viewer)

[Todd Andrews]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

It's also not true. They can engage in activities that are considered political. They just can't support political campaigns.

That is how the IRS has interpreted the actual statute written by Congress, but the statute itself says that 501c4 social welfare organizations qualify if they are operated EXCLUSIVELY for social welfare purposes. Congress in the 50s interpreted "exclusively" from the statute in an IRS reg as "primarily" engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Exclusively does not equal primarily.

It is that little wiggle room that allows 501c4 orgs to advocate politically so long as they deceptively and baldly lie that their primary purpose is still social welfare--that is what Karl Rove did with Crossroads GPS when he spent hundreds of millions on the 2012 campaign. Completely ridiculous and these sham 501c4 orgs should be shut down. Real 501c4 orgs that are exclusively for social welfare purposes should continue, of course.

 

[jonessed]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

It's also not true. They can engage in activities that are considered political. They just can't support political campaigns.

That is how the IRS has interpreted the actual statute written by Congress, but the statute itself says that 501c4 social welfare organizations qualify if they are operated EXCLUSIVELY for social welfare purposes. Congress in the 50s interpreted "exclusively" from the statute in an IRS reg as "primarily" engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Exclusively does not equal primarily. It is that little wiggle room that allows 501c4 orgs to advocate politically so long as they deceptively and baldly lie that their primary purpose is still social welfare--that is what Karl Rove did with Crossroads GPS when he spent hundreds of millions on the 2012 campaign. Completely ridiculous and these sham 501c4 orgs should be shut down. Real 501c4 orgs that are exclusively for social welfare purposes should continue, of course.

It's currently legal and it's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

It's also not true. They can engage in activities that are considered political. They just can't support political campaigns.

That is how the IRS has interpreted the actual statute written by Congress, but the statute itself says that 501c4 social welfare organizations qualify if they are operated EXCLUSIVELY for social welfare purposes. Congress in the 50s interpreted "exclusively" from the statute in an IRS reg as "primarily" engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Exclusively does not equal primarily. It is that little wiggle room that allows 501c4 orgs to advocate politically so long as they deceptively and baldly lie that their primary purpose is still social welfare--that is what Karl Rove did with Crossroads GPS when he spent hundreds of millions on the 2012 campaign. Completely ridiculous and these sham 501c4 orgs should be shut down. Real 501c4 orgs that are exclusively for social welfare purposes should continue, of course.

It's currently legal and it's not going to change anytime soon.

Not really. Its currently "easy to get away with" and not going to stop until bigger money fights against big money.

 

[Todd Andrews]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

It's also not true. They can engage in activities that are considered political. They just can't support political campaigns.

That is how the IRS has interpreted the actual statute written by Congress, but the statute itself says that 501c4 social welfare organizations qualify if they are operated EXCLUSIVELY for social welfare purposes. Congress in the 50s interpreted "exclusively" from the statute in an IRS reg as "primarily" engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Exclusively does not equal primarily. It is that little wiggle room that allows 501c4 orgs to advocate politically so long as they deceptively and baldly lie that their primary purpose is still social welfare--that is what Karl Rove did with Crossroads GPS when he spent hundreds of millions on the 2012 campaign. Completely ridiculous and these sham 501c4 orgs should be shut down. Real 501c4 orgs that are exclusively for social welfare purposes should continue, of course.

It's currently legal and it's not going to change anytime soon.

So whether something is "currently legal" is the measure for whether it is correct and right, got it.

 

[drummer]

Nice summary of this whole mess, with some actual information and stuff.

That must have been done prior to the Congressional testimony. What was actually done to many of these groups was significantly more extensive than what is described in your graphic here.

Article says June 5th. Of course it may have taken them a few days to compile the data.

It's not an original work. It may have simply been posted to the blog on the 5th.

Maybe, but it's up to whoever that can post data that refutes it to, well post data that refutes it.

Mmmmm....I don't know. How about the IRS actually admitting that it targeted Conservative groups? Would that be enough evidence for you?

You do know that they later stated using the word "TARGETING" was factually incorrect and inappropriate to use when explaining the situation?

Sure, thing. I'll take YOUR word for it. You're not hanging from Obama's nutsack like some of these other guys around here.

Bigot

 

[jonessed]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

It's also not true. They can engage in activities that are considered political. They just can't support political campaigns.

That is how the IRS has interpreted the actual statute written by Congress, but the statute itself says that 501c4 social welfare organizations qualify if they are operated EXCLUSIVELY for social welfare purposes. Congress in the 50s interpreted "exclusively" from the statute in an IRS reg as "primarily" engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Exclusively does not equal primarily. It is that little wiggle room that allows 501c4 orgs to advocate politically so long as they deceptively and baldly lie that their primary purpose is still social welfare--that is what Karl Rove did with Crossroads GPS when he spent hundreds of millions on the 2012 campaign. Completely ridiculous and these sham 501c4 orgs should be shut down. Real 501c4 orgs that are exclusively for social welfare purposes should continue, of course.

It's currently legal and it's not going to change anytime soon.

So whether something is "currently legal" is the measure for whether it is correct and right, got it.

It's certainly less subjective.

 

[drummer]

Maybe the good that should come out of this mess is real tax and campaign finance reform. I doubt that will ever happen though.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Maybe the good that should come out of this mess is real tax and campaign finance reform. I doubt that will ever happen though.

One side doesn't ever want that that to happen.

 

[timschochet]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they?

To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate.

But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Maybe the good that should come out of this mess is real tax and campaign finance reform. I doubt that will ever happen though.

One side doesn't ever want that that to happen.

lol... Yea, but not your side right? All is right over there.. Your side is completely above board... lol.. you guys are a funny bunch..

 

[jonessed]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they? To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate. But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

There isn't evidence for you to acknowledge that the IRS targeted conservative groups?

 

[MaxThreshold]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they?

To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate.

But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

I said the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups, not the WH. Also, 48 progressive groups? Where did you see that?

 

[jonessed]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they? To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate. But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

I said the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups, not the WH. Also, 48 progressive groups? Where did you see that?

They scrutinized some applications from progressive groups. There is no evidence they targeted them in same manner, put such a high percentage of their applications on indefinite hold, or drilled them with what are likely illegal questionnaires.He can't even acknowledge IRS culpability to something they have admitted. You aren't going to get anywhere here.

 

[GroveDiesel]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they? To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate. But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

I said the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups, not the WH. Also, 48 progressive groups? Where did you see that?

I asked him the same thing earlier and he skimmed by it or didn't want to answer it. We already know they targeted Jewish groups that supported the state of Israel, so it's possible the 48 "non-conservative" groups fell under categories like that. We do know that the IRS has admitted the only keywords they checked for were related to the tea party and conservatives and that they had no keywords that they used to search for liberal groups.

 

[MaxThreshold]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they?To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate.

But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

I said the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups, not the WH. Also, 48 progressive groups? Where did you see that?

They scrutinized some applications from progressive groups. There is no evidence they targeted them in same manner, put such a high percentage of their applications on indefinite hold, or drilled them with what are likely illegal questionnaires.He can't even acknowledge IRS culpability to something they have admitted. You aren't going to get anywhere here.

Interesting. I found this, which to me seems to put a dent in the credibility of the article drummer posted:

In other words, while there was an increase in 2010, it was relatively small. The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented. Also, it appears Lerner significantly understated the number of applications in 2010 (“1500”) in order to make her claim of “more than doubled.”

“I think you guys were reading the paper as much as I was. So it was pretty much we started seeing information in the press that raised questions for us, and we went back and took a look.”

Here, Lerner suggests that she found out about this issue only when news reports appeared in February and March 2012 about tea party groups complaining that they were being targeted. But the IG timelineshows this claim to be false.

 

[timschochet]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they?To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate.

But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

There isn't evidence for you to acknowledge that the IRS targeted conservative groups?

No there isn't. And despite your disclaimer that the 48 progressive groups did not receive the same treatment, I can't find evidence of that. If you can prove that in fact, there is a difference between how the progressive groups and the conservative groups were treated, then I would concede your point.

However- even if you can prove that, it only provides evidence of the first of 3 points you would have to demonstrate in order for this to be a serious scandal rising to the level of Watergate:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups - assuming your statement above is correct, you'll have provided evidence of this.

2. The IRS targeted conservative groups for politically motivated reasons- not necessarily proven even if point #1 is correct.

3. This operation was directed by the White House.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Andrews claims to be librarian and defends the IRS.. Hilarious..

 

[GroveDiesel]

STOP SAYING 46 PROGRESSIVE GROUPS.

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, I'm open to it. As I wrote earlier today, there may be more here than meets the eye. I have my doubts for the reasons I've stated, but I certainly think there's enough to warrant an investigation which in fact is taking place. It troubles me that the main investigation, led by Issa, will be so partisan in nature. But I suppose that can't be helped. If there's evidence out there that points to the White House, then hopefully it will emerge.

 

[timschochet]

STOP SAYING 46 PROGRESSIVE GROUPS.

Here's the article that Drummer linked:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/30/report-one-third-of-tax-exempt-groups-scrutinized-by-irs-were-not-conservative

Among the non-conservative groups Sullivan found the IRS had scrutinized were Progress Missouri Education Fund, a progressive advocacy group, New York Civic Action Inc., a left-leaning voter education group, and ALICE, a legislative policy group meant to counter the right-leaning group ALEC.

"This [analysis] tells you that there certainly were other groups selected. That is, conservatives were not singled out. And that certainly changes the tenor of a lot of commentary that you hear," Sullivan tells Whispers.

I dunno, seems pretty progressive to me.

 

[jonessed]

Look guys, I'm open to it. As I wrote earlier today, there may be more here than meets the eye. I have my doubts for the reasons I've stated, but I certainly think there's enough to warrant an investigation which in fact is taking place. It troubles me that the main investigation, led by Issa, will be so partisan in nature. But I suppose that can't be helped. If there's evidence out there that points to the White House, then hopefully it will emerge.

The head of the IRS apologized for targeting conservative groups in front of Congress, but there isnt enough evidence for you to believe the IRS actually targeted conservative groups. You are completely mental.

 

[joffer]

Andrews claims to be librarian and defends the IRS.. Hilarious..

Can he explain that whole Dewey decimal thingy?

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, I'm open to it. As I wrote earlier today, there may be more here than meets the eye. I have my doubts for the reasons I've stated, but I certainly think there's enough to warrant an investigation which in fact is taking place. It troubles me that the main investigation, led by Issa, will be so partisan in nature. But I suppose that can't be helped. If there's evidence out there that points to the White House, then hopefully it will emerge.

The head of the IRS apologized for targeting conservative groups in front of Congress, but there isnt enough evidence for you to believe the IRS actually targeted conservative groups. You are completely mental.

They did target conservative groups. But they also targeted progressive groups. So the question of whether or not any of this was done for political reasons is still very much in the air.

 

[GroveDiesel]

STOP SAYING 46 PROGRESSIVE GROUPS.

Here's the article that Drummer linked:http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/30/report-one-third-of-tax-exempt-groups-scrutinized-by-irs-were-not-conservative

Among the non-conservative groups Sullivan found the IRS had scrutinized were Progress Missouri Education Fund, a progressive advocacy group, New York Civic Action Inc., a left-leaning voter education group, and ALICE, a legislative policy group meant to counter the right-leaning group ALEC.

"This [analysis] tells you that there certainly were other groups selected. That is, conservatives were not singled out. And that certainly changes the tenor of a lot of commentary that you hear," Sullivan tells Whispers.

I dunno, seems pretty progressive to me.

That's 3. Not 46. You and I both know if there were 46 progressive groups the article would have said 46 progressive groups, not "46 non-conservative" groups.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Look guys, I'm open to it. As I wrote earlier today, there may be more here than meets the eye. I have my doubts for the reasons I've stated, but I certainly think there's enough to warrant an investigation which in fact is taking place. It troubles me that the main investigation, led by Issa, will be so partisan in nature. But I suppose that can't be helped. If there's evidence out there that points to the White House, then hopefully it will emerge.

The head of the IRS apologized for targeting conservative groups in front of Congress, but there isnt enough evidence for you to believe the IRS actually targeted conservative groups. You are completely mental.

They did target conservative groups. But they also targeted progressive groups. So the question of whether or not any of this was done for political reasons is still very much in the air.

Do we know they targeted progressive groups, or did they come across them in normal review and had legitimate concerns? Because, again, we know they used keywords to search for amd target conservative groups but did NOT for liberal groups.

 

[timschochet]

STOP SAYING 46 PROGRESSIVE GROUPS.

Here's the article that Drummer linked:http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/30/report-one-third-of-tax-exempt-groups-scrutinized-by-irs-were-not-conservative

Among the non-conservative groups Sullivan found the IRS had scrutinized were Progress Missouri Education Fund, a progressive advocacy group, New York Civic Action Inc., a left-leaning voter education group, and ALICE, a legislative policy group meant to counter the right-leaning group ALEC.

"This [analysis] tells you that there certainly were other groups selected. That is, conservatives were not singled out. And that certainly changes the tenor of a lot of commentary that you hear," Sullivan tells Whispers.

I dunno, seems pretty progressive to me.

That's 3. Not 46. You and I both know if there were 46 progressive groups the article would have said 46 progressive groups, not "46 non-conservative" groups.

Actually it's 48.

Your distinction is accurate, but I don't believe it's relevant. "Non-conservative" still makes the same point.

 

[timschochet]

Look guys, I'm open to it. As I wrote earlier today, there may be more here than meets the eye. I have my doubts for the reasons I've stated, but I certainly think there's enough to warrant an investigation which in fact is taking place. It troubles me that the main investigation, led by Issa, will be so partisan in nature. But I suppose that can't be helped. If there's evidence out there that points to the White House, then hopefully it will emerge.

The head of the IRS apologized for targeting conservative groups in front of Congress, but there isnt enough evidence for you to believe the IRS actually targeted conservative groups. You are completely mental.

They did target conservative groups. But they also targeted progressive groups. So the question of whether or not any of this was done for political reasons is still very much in the air.

Do we know they targeted progressive groups, or did they come across them in normal review and had legitimate concerns? Because, again, we know they used keywords to search for amd target conservative groups but did NOT for liberal groups.

1. I don't know the answer. If I did, and the answer was no, I would concede your point.

2. I have no idea if your second sentence is correct. Do you have a link?

 

[jonessed]

Look guys, I'm open to it. As I wrote earlier today, there may be more here than meets the eye. I have my doubts for the reasons I've stated, but I certainly think there's enough to warrant an investigation which in fact is taking place. It troubles me that the main investigation, led by Issa, will be so partisan in nature. But I suppose that can't be helped. If there's evidence out there that points to the White House, then hopefully it will emerge.

The head of the IRS apologized for targeting conservative groups in front of Congress, but there isnt enough evidence for you to believe the IRS actually targeted conservative groups. You are completely mental.

They did target conservative groups. But they also targeted progressive groups. So the question of whether or not any of this was done for political reasons is still very much in the air.

We know their targeting criteria for conservative groups. What was the criteria for liberal groups? How many of them were asked for donor lists? How many we're asked for member lists with employment status? What liberal name strings were searched?I proved conservative groups were "targeted" (kind of easy when the IRS admits it). You need to prove liberal groups were "targeted" (not just had their application scrutinized, but actually "targeted" in the same manner and put under similar scrutiny for their political ideology).

 

[Sand]

By statute, 501©(4) orgs cant do ANY political efforts so all of these so-called social welfare orgs of all stripes should be stripped of their tax exempt status. That will be the ultimate end result of this mess: all of the tea party groups complaining of being targeted will lose their tax exempt status anyway, as they should.

That's not really addressing the issue, though. It's a smokescreen to try and distract from the real point which is the IRS willfully targeted conservative groups. Stay focused, Todd.

But did they?To me that is really the main point Max. If you can establish that this is so, and that the White House directed it (as Peter Wehner and others assert) then I would agree with you that we have a serious scandal here, probably the most serious political scandal in this country since Watergate.

But so far, the evidence isn't there. And in fact, the link that Drummer provided earlier, which shows that 48 progressive groups were targeted as well, argues against it. You can't wish it so simply because you don't like Obama. You've got to prove it. So far, I don't see it. If you disagree, what am I missing?

There isn't evidence for you to acknowledge that the IRS targeted conservative groups?

POTUS made a speech and admitted and condemned exactly that. My assumption is that he has the best intelligence on the issue that anyone can possibly have. So this one isn't up for dispute - we don't need evidence. We have the words of the commander in chief.

 

[GroveDiesel]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/10/im-not-good-at-math-the-irss-public-relations-disaster/?print=1

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2013/05/15/behind-irs-targeting-conservative-groups/

Go ahead and find one article that finds one shred of evidence that the IRS actually targeted liberal groups versus liberal groups being investigated in the normal course of inspection.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Had they been targeting conservative groups... they would have used the term "conservative".

They looked at some anti-tax groups that use terms such as as tea party and patriot.

 

[timschochet]

Had they been targeting conservative groups... they would have used the term "conservative".

They looked at some anti-tax groups that use terms such as as tea party and patriot.

That's a pretty lame distinction.

Look, the only legitimate argument against what Grove Diesel and Jonessed are saying is if they targeted progressive groups the same way. If they're right and that didn't happen, then we have to concede that conservative groups were indeed targeted. Whether or not they were targeted for political reasons, and whether or not they were targeted at the direction of the White House, are open questions. But if Grove Diesel's evidence is correct then we should concede the first point.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Had they been targeting conservative groups... they would have used the term "conservative".

They looked at some anti-tax groups that use terms such as as tea party and patriot.

That's a pretty lame distinction.

Look, the only legitimate argument against what Grove Diesel and Jonessed are saying is if they targeted progressive groups the same way. If they're right and that didn't happen, then we have to concede that conservative groups were indeed targeted. Whether or not they were targeted for political reasons, and whether or not they were targeted at the direction of the White House, are open questions. But if Grove Diesel's evidence is correct then we should concede the first point.

The majority of anti-tax groups are conservative.That doesn't change the targeting of anti-tax groups -- as opposed to conservative groups.

Had they been targeting conservative groups, they flatly would have used conservative as a term.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

rabblerabble...

Gonna target dogs that cause death by dog attacks and serious injury by dog mauling

rabblerabble...

Dont be targeting Pit Bulls!!! How dare you.

 

[drummer]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

 

[jonessed]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

 

[drummer]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

Therefore scrutinization, since there is no other agency that can oversee them applying for a tax exemption.

 

[jonessed]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

Therefore scrutinization, since there is no other agency that can oversee them applying for a tax exemption.

If donor lists, membership political affiliation, membership career positions, leadership history, etc. is going to be a new standard for the IRS then it needs to be applied across the board for every applicant.Even that isn't likely to be enough, but I suppose it's a start.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

That isnt exactly correct. These ridiculous sham 501c4 orgs trying to scam the taxpayers can engage in political activity IF THEY EXCLUSIVELY PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE, and by in practice "by exclusively" means that their primary activity is social welfare and they lie about what they do and fraudulently claim their political activity is minor and incidental, etc. Why are you defending this ridiculous sham?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

That isnt exactly correct. These ridiculous sham 501c4 orgs trying to scam the taxpayers can engage in political activity IF THEY EXCLUSIVELY PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE, and by in practice "by exclusively" means that their primary activity is social welfare and they lie about what they do and fraudulently claim their political activity is minor and incidental, etc. Why are you defending this ridiculous sham?

Why do you keep throwing up distractions? You've yet to concede that what the IRS did is even wrong you're so in bed with the Administration. Of course, I expect this of someone as extremely partisan as yourself, but you're going out of your way to avoid the actual topic of the thread.

Thread: IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups.

Todd Andrews/BST: Look! A squirrel!

 

[MaxThreshold]

rabblerabble...

Gonna target dogs that cause death by dog attacks and serious injury by dog mauling

rabblerabble...

Dont be targeting Pit Bulls!!! How dare you.

You need to read this.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

rabblerabble...

Gonna target dogs that cause death by dog attacks and serious injury by dog mauling

rabblerabble...

Dont be targeting Pit Bulls!!! How dare you.

You need to read this.

The majority of anti-tax groups are conservative.That doesn't change the targeting of anti-tax groups -- as opposed to conservative groups.

Result <-----------------/----------------> Cause

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Oh ya Max from the VERY link this whole begins with... the person who said the targeting of tea-party and patriot named groups and that an apology needed to be made and also that the procedure was incorrect and needed to be corrected.... "was not motivated by political bias."

Why do you keep skipping over that detail when parts of the entire story. Not just cherry picked parts.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

STOP SAYING 46 PROGRESSIVE GROUPS.

Here's the article that Drummer linked:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/30/report-one-third-of-tax-exempt-groups-scrutinized-by-irs-were-not-conservative

Among the non-conservative groups Sullivan found the IRS had scrutinized were Progress Missouri Education Fund, a progressive advocacy group, New York Civic Action Inc., a left-leaning voter education group, and ALICE, a legislative policy group meant to counter the right-leaning group ALEC.

"This [analysis] tells you that there certainly were other groups selected. That is, conservatives were not singled out. And that certainly changes the tenor of a lot of commentary that you hear," Sullivan tells Whispers.

I dunno, seems pretty progressive to me.

it doesn't say 46 progressive groups.. it says amoung the 46 other groups, some were progressive..

 

[drummer]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

That isnt exactly correct. These ridiculous sham 501c4 orgs trying to scam the taxpayers can engage in political activity IF THEY EXCLUSIVELY PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE, and by in practice "by exclusively" means that their primary activity is social welfare and they lie about what they do and fraudulently claim their political activity is minor and incidental, etc. Why are you defending this ridiculous sham?

Why do you keep throwing up distractions? You've yet to concede that what the IRS did is even wrong you're so in bed with the Administration. Of course, I expect this of someone as extremely partisan as yourself, but you're going out of your way to avoid the actual topic of the thread.

Thread: IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups.

Todd Andrews/BST: Look! A squirrel!

You're one really angry scared dude.

 

[jonessed]

rabblerabble...

Gonna target dogs that cause death by dog attacks and serious injury by dog mauling

rabblerabble...

Dont be targeting Pit Bulls!!! How dare you.

You need to read this.

The majority of anti-tax groups are conservative.That doesn't change the targeting of anti-tax groups -- as opposed to conservative groups.

Result <-----------------/----------------> Cause

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

That isnt exactly correct. These ridiculous sham 501c4 orgs trying to scam the taxpayers can engage in political activity IF THEY EXCLUSIVELY PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE, and by in practice "by exclusively" means that their primary activity is social welfare and they lie about what they do and fraudulently claim their political activity is minor and incidental, etc. Why are you defending this ridiculous sham?

Income tax, and the things they use the money for, that is the sham.. And not supported by our constitution.. But you would know this if you were really libertarian as you claim...

You've been outed..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

rabblerabble...

Gonna target dogs that cause death by dog attacks and serious injury by dog mauling

rabblerabble...

Dont be targeting Pit Bulls!!! How dare you.

You need to read this.

The majority of anti-tax groups are conservative.That doesn't change the targeting of anti-tax groups -- as opposed to conservative groups.

Result <-----------------/----------------> Cause

IRS admitted targeting conservative groups.. President admits IRS targeted conservative groups.. You... You just don't get it...

 

[drummer]

rabblerabble...

Gonna target dogs that cause death by dog attacks and serious injury by dog mauling

rabblerabble...

Dont be targeting Pit Bulls!!! How dare you.

You need to read this.

The majority of anti-tax groups are conservative.That doesn't change the targeting of anti-tax groups -- as opposed to conservative groups.

Result <-----------------/----------------> Cause

IRS admitted targeting conservative groups.. President admits IRS targeted conservative groups.. You... You just don't get it...

and somehow....this was the President's fault because of his hit list...

Is the italics correct with your line of thinking?

 

[jonessed]

Somehow all this parsing of what is progressive/non-conservative vs. Tea Party/Anti Tax is the legitimacy of any of these groups they targeted.

The IRS would have to have evidence that they were actively supporting a political campaign to deny them status. They can legally engage in political activity.

That isnt exactly correct. These ridiculous sham 501c4 orgs trying to scam the taxpayers can engage in political activity IF THEY EXCLUSIVELY PROMOTE SOCIAL WELFARE, and by in practice "by exclusively" means that their primary activity is social welfare and they lie about what they do and fraudulently claim their political activity is minor and incidental, etc. Why are you defending this ridiculous sham?

If the IRS considers lobbying social welfare I'm not convinced that most of what you seem upset about wouldn't fall under that umbrella as well. The law is written loosely enough so that no one really has to lie. Perhaps the designation should be dumped altogether.Regardless, these organizations are currently legal and should not be harassed because they aren't a favored political persuasion.