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

[drummer]

I've sort of been dismissing this scandal but that article gave me pause. Perhaps this is more serious than I originally thought...

Oof.

Why "oof"?

I normally almost always dismiss these sorts of scandals. But who knows? If Congress can find a link to the Obama administration, then there's something there. If they can't, then there isn't. But at this point, it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

I'd be more concerned with these pseudo political organizations - who so happened to crop up because of this past Election cycle - trying to game the IRS. The IRS shouldn't have to be put in a situation like this in the first place. If there was real campaign finance reform as well as tax reform, we may not have this conversation in the first place.

But there is no way any politician would want to turn off any $$ spigot. The IRS should follow the money. That's their job.

You seem to be dismissing what appears to be at the heart of the issue. As far as I can see, there are two basic claims being made by conservatives here:

1. The IRS targeted conservative groups in an extraordinary way, using methods and focus which they have not applied in the past, and which were not applied against non-conservative groups, some of which were illegal.

2. The IRS did this at the direction of the Obama White House.

If there is evidence that these two points are at all true, then your points regarding the overall state of campaign finance reform are irrelevant, IMO.

You're totally missing the point of what these again "pseudo political organizations" were trying to do in the first place.

ETA: you posted "if these all are true". So something that isn't proven you find 'relevant'. That's pure squish.

Are you related to Todd Andrews?

At this point I have no idea if it's relevant or not. As I wrote, I was dismissive but that piece from Commentary makes me hesitate. Could there actually be more to this? If I had to wager, I would say no; I don't believe any connection will ever be established between the IRS and the White House, and that should end the "scandal" part of this. But I'm not positive I'm right.

The term "squish" isn't an Andrews exclusive coined term, and I may have not even used it within proper context. But let me ask you this: if The Heritage Foundation - the Conservative political organization that recently posted and article that had immigrants (translation: people from south of the border) genetically and socially inferior to "native" Americans (and we're not talking about the real Native Americans) - trying to get a tax exemption while being a major contributor to the Republican party, shouldn't the IRS actually look at they being a "social welfare" program?

In a perfect world? Of course. But in reality it depends on whether or not they focused on other organizations in the past which do the same thing, and if they're completely impartial between conservative and progressive groups. If they're going to "pick on" primarily conservative groups and leave others alone at the same time, then I'd say there is a problem.

Again, these so called political organizations used those key words to bait people into sending them $$, while at the same time trying to game the system. The bottom line is the IRS should had not be put in this position in the because things will go wrong, but also the bottom line is those organizations were trying to game the system in the first place.

 

[timschochet]

OK,. I get that they were trying to game the system. But surely there are progressive groups trying to game the system as well. Unless the IRS goes after both types with equal vigor, there's going to be a sense of unfairness.

 

[drummer]

OK,. I get that they were trying to game the system. But surely there are progressive groups trying to game the system as well. Unless the IRS goes after both types with equal vigor, there's going to be a sense of unfairness.

Sure, and maybe the investigation will bring out more about those progressive groups. I think the IRS needed reform ages ago, but part of this noise from the Right may be due to if someone actually followed the $$, some of these politicians may have benefited from the dirt. On both sides of the aisle.

 

[E Street Brat]

So again, anybody focusing on the those so-called political organizations who were trying to game the IRS?

they should start with

Barack H. Obama Foundationhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/malik-obama-charity_n_859563.html

 

[drummer]

So again, anybody focusing on the those so-called political organizations who were trying to game the IRS?

they should start with

Barack H. Obama Foundationhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/malik-obama-charity_n_859563.html

That would have some meat, except for:

The foundation never filed for tax-exempt status in the United States and didn't have permission to be collecting donations in Virginia.

Alton Ray Baysden, a former government employee whose home the charity was started in, claims the foundation is still trying to get organized.

This.

 

[E Street Brat]

So again, anybody focusing on the those so-called political organizations who were trying to game the IRS?

they should start with

Barack H. Obama Foundationhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/malik-obama-charity_n_859563.html

That would have some meat, except for:

>The foundation never filed for tax-exempt status in the United States and didn't have permission to be collecting donations in Virginia.

Alton Ray Baysden, a former government employee whose home the charity was started in, claims the foundation is still trying to get organized.

This.

Untrue

http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf

Signed by Lerner Herself

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/

 

[drummer]

So again, anybody focusing on the those so-called political organizations who were trying to game the IRS?

they should start with

Barack H. Obama Foundationhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/malik-obama-charity_n_859563.html

That would have some meat, except for:

>The foundation never filed for tax-exempt status in the United States and didn't have permission to be collecting donations in Virginia.

Alton Ray Baysden, a former government employee whose home the charity was started in, claims the foundation is still trying to get orga

nized.

This.

Untrue

http://www.barackhobamafoundation.org/letter.pdf

Signed by Lerner Herself

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/

These two links (I see what you did there) would had been better served in the original post. But again, organizations like these should be scrutinized, and they getting a tax exemption is wrong. That's the point. Now if we can go follow all the money from all the political organizations that apply for a tax exemption...

 

[drummer]

Oddly enough:

About one-third of tax-exempt groups scrutinized and approved by the Internal Revenue Service were not conservative, according to a new report by a leading tax economist.

Of the 176 groups granted tax-exempt status whose names were released by the IRS earlier this month, Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a non-profit tax news and analysis service, found 46 contained words such as "tea party" or "patriots" in their names, while 76 were other conservative organizations, and 48 were not conservative.

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

 

[jon_mx]

Oh no. Freedom of speech. Run for the hills. I am so scared.

 

[drummer]

Oh no. Freedom of speech. Run for the hills. I am so scared.

You've been scared all your life.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

 

[timschochet]

Oddly enough:

About one-third of tax-exempt groups scrutinized and approved by the Internal Revenue Service were not conservative, according to a new report by a leading tax economist.

Of the 176 groups granted tax-exempt status whose names were released by the IRS earlier this month, Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a non-profit tax news and analysis service, found 46 contained words such as "tea party" or "patriots" in their names, while 76 were other conservative organizations, and 48 were not conservative.

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

Thank you. See now I didn't know this and it makes a big difference. Not only does it argue against a political bias by the IRS, it also makes involvement from the Obama White House seem very unlikely. I don't see how anyone other than anti-Obama partisans could look at this piece of information and not be much more dismissive of this scandal.

 

[drummer]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

If the can verify the fact that the IRS leaked the donor list like one of the groups claimed yesterday then this story blows sky high. They claimed they could prove it so we will see. If true, if certainly shows even the biggest doubters that his was 100% politically motivated. Connecting that to the Obama campaign at that point would just be a matter of time.

 

[jon_mx]

Whether it be 9-11 Truthers or Birth Certificate Advocates, the federal government has no right to tax them for trying to express their stupid beliefs.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

 

[timschochet]

If the can verify the fact that the IRS leaked the donor list like one of the groups claimed yesterday then this story blows sky high. They claimed they could prove it so we will see. If true, if certainly shows even the biggest doubters that his was 100% politically motivated. Connecting that to the Obama campaign at that point would just be a matter of time.

Agreed. But the fact that they investigated 48 progressive groups, if true, makes me doubt that it was politically motivated.

 

[jon_mx]

If the can verify the fact that the IRS leaked the donor list like one of the groups claimed yesterday then this story blows sky high. They claimed they could prove it so we will see. If true, if certainly shows even the biggest doubters that his was 100% politically motivated. Connecting that to the Obama campaign at that point would just be a matter of time.

Connecting it to Obama is speculation. But this is a huge abuse of power. And if Obama had knowledge, it is an impeachable offense to have such an abuse of power.

 

[drummer]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

 

[timschochet]

Whether it be 9-11 Truthers or Birth Certificate Advocates, the federal government has no right to tax them for trying to express their stupid beliefs.

Ypu may have a point, but again this is not a scandal for Obama unless you can demonstrate both political motivation and a direct connection.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

 

[drummer]

Whether it be 9-11 Truthers or Birth Certificate Advocates, the federal government has no right to tax them for trying to express their stupid beliefs.

Ypu may have a point, but again this is not a scandal for Obama unless you can demonstrate both political motivation and a direct connection.

jon's too busy shaving his Siamese cat because she is freaking him out.

 

[Oink Oink the Pig]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

You can't prove that.

 

[jon_mx]

Whether it be 9-11 Truthers or Birth Certificate Advocates, the federal government has no right to tax them for trying to express their stupid beliefs.

Ypu may have a point, but again this is not a scandal for Obama unless you can demonstrate both political motivation and a direct connection.

Did not say it was. But drummers deflection concerning tax exempt status is ridiculous.

 

[jon_mx]

Whether it be 9-11 Truthers or Birth Certificate Advocates, the federal government has no right to tax them for trying to express their stupid beliefs.

Ypu may have a point, but again this is not a scandal for Obama unless you can demonstrate both political motivation and a direct connection.

jon's too busy shaving his Siamese cat because she is freaking him out.

Address the issue you can't seem to comprehend please.

 

[drummer]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

Free speech is free. Why should the government subsidize it in a tax exemption? If you can't profit from the free market, then you really have nothing valuable to say to who you are trying to raise the $$ from.

Besides, you don't really care one way or the other. Unless real free speech was aimed at you, and then you would cry to a Mod.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

Free speech is free. Why should the government subsidize it in a tax exemption? If you can't profit from the free market, then you really have nothing valuable to say to who you are trying to raise the $$ from. Besides, you don't really care one way or the other. Unless real free speech was aimed at you, and then you would cry to a Mod.

Excercizimg free speech is not income. You should not be tax on engaging in free speech. HTH, but I am sure it won't.

 

[drummer]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

Free speech is free. Why should the government subsidize it in a tax exemption? If you can't profit from the free market, then you really have nothing valuable to say to who you are trying to raise the $$ from. Besides, you don't really care one way or the other. Unless real free speech was aimed at you, and then you would cry to a Mod.

Excercizimg free speech is not income. You should not be tax on engaging in free speech. HTH, but I am sure it won't.

Hold on a second here, you advocating the right of free speech to being tax exempt. So therefore, all of us here should be granted a tax exemption for posting on a message board, even though we are not individually helping in social welfare.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

Free speech is free. Why should the government subsidize it in a tax exemption? If you can't profit from the free market, then you really have nothing valuable to say to who you are trying to raise the $$ from.

Besides, you don't really care one way or the other. Unless real free speech was aimed at you, and then you would cry to a Mod.

BTW, why are you a bigot against certain groups you disagree with. By what ####ed up standard is one group tax exempt to exercize their freedom and one group is not. Not that is true bigotry.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

Free speech is free. Why should the government subsidize it in a tax exemption? If you can't profit from the free market, then you really have nothing valuable to say to who you are trying to raise the $$ from. Besides, you don't really care one way or the other. Unless real free speech was aimed at you, and then you would cry to a Mod.

Excercizimg free speech is not income. You should not be tax on engaging in free speech. HTH, but I am sure it won't.

Hold on a second here, you advocating the right of free speech to being tax exempt. So therefore, all of us here should be granted a tax exemption for posting on a message board, even though we are not individually helping in social welfare.

If it costs us $10 to post here, why should the government charge us $3 extra? The power to tax is the power to destroy. Why not tax us $1000 to post? Why not require a licence to post our opinion. Oh please IRS let me speak.

 

[drummer]

The idea that groups of people who organized to have their voices heard get taxed is an absurd concept. It is such an assault on our freedom it is beyond my comprehension why any American citizen would support such a concept

Just think if they were Muslim.

Good point. Tax them out of existence. That should be the role of the federal government or so you seem to be advocating.

I'm advocating people like yourself have a voice, but not get any special tax exemption. Because Bigot's don't need a tax exemption.

So in your twisted reasoning, some groups have a tax exemption to engage in free speech and some don't. What a crook of ####.

Free speech is free. Why should the government subsidize it in a tax exemption? If you can't profit from the free market, then you really have nothing valuable to say to who you are trying to raise the $$ from. Besides, you don't really care one way or the other. Unless real free speech was aimed at you, and then you would cry to a Mod.

Excercizimg free speech is not income. You should not be tax on engaging in free speech. HTH, but I am sure it won't.

Hold on a second here, you advocating the right of free speech to being tax exempt. So therefore, all of us here should be granted a tax exemption for posting on a message board, even though we are not individually helping in social welfare.

If it costs us $10 to post here, why should the government charge us $3 extra? The power to tax is the power to destroy. Why not tax us $1000 to post? Why not require a licence to post our opinion. Oh please IRS let me speak.

If your post is only worth 3 cents to the dollar, why do you need the IRS' help?

 

[GroveDiesel]

If the can verify the fact that the IRS leaked the donor list like one of the groups claimed yesterday then this story blows sky high. They claimed they could prove it so we will see. If true, if certainly shows even the biggest doubters that his was 100% politically motivated. Connecting that to the Obama campaign at that point would just be a matter of time.

Agreed. But the fact that they investigated 48 progressive groups, if true, makes me doubt that it was politically motivated.

Where does it say they were progressive? We already know the IRS was harassing Jewish groups on the same basis. They wouldn't necessarily be classified as conservative groups but would be political.

 

[jonessed]

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.

 

[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.

 

[jonessed]

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.

 

[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.

 

[jonessed]

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.

Maybe? It's referencing a report that came out well before the Congressional testimony and the name of the blogger that posted it on the 5th is not the same person whose named on the document as the designer.

I'm not refuting the information. It was all that was likely available at the time.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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?

 

[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.

Maybe? It's referencing a report that came out well before the Congressional testimony and the name of the blogger that posted it on the 5th is not the same person whose named on the document as the designer.

If you're here to post data that refutes it, then by all means do it. It would be more interesting than your hearsay.

 

[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?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/

Did it correct the mistake?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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?

 

[drummer]

BTW, a few Daily Caller references today. Nice to see Tucker back on his feet.

 

[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?

I don't know of anyone denying that. The question is whether they chose the Tea Party-related words they did because 85%+ of the new groups that they were tasked with approving were conservative and they were short-staffed, or whether they did it because Obama told them as part of his master plan to crush his enemies.

Yeah, they kinda like fired a few people over that.

 

[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.

 

[drummer]

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.

I don't have a problem with this.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[jonessed]

This information suggests to me they should have been focusing more on liberals rather than conservatives, if 1 in 3 are found to be breaking the rules 0 out of 100 (not sure of the #) conservatives were found breaking rules

33% of liberals

0% of conservatives

^ found to be breaking the rules in regards to tax exempt policies and politics..

Yet the conservatives garnered a disproportionate amount of the scrutiny

Do you have some actual numbers to back this up or are you just making #### up?

You said yourself that 1 liberal group was denied vs 0 conservative groups.. Now I have to prove your #'s?

I haven't seen any links to conservative groups being denied, but thanks for admitting you are just making #### up....again.

I was just using your information"There were liberal groups denied, but no conservative groups"

And somehow I'm the one making stuff up..

You said your self, in other words that 0% of conservative groups were denied, which means they weren't breaking the rules.

You said liberal groups were denied, which means they were breaking the rules..

This is your information buddy.. Sorry I had to repeat it back to you..

I'm asking where you are getting your numbers about the total number of liberal vs conservative groups targeted.

I specificly said:

>(not sure of the #)

And I was basing the numbers on your post..

Now you debate the #'s.. You made the claim buddy.. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you..

The only claim I made is that a liberal group's application was denied while I have not seen anyone claim a conservative one was denied. Then you started spouting off about the total number of applications examined and making up percentages. That was no where in my post.

There isn't much functional difference between being denied and being placed on indefinite hold while inundated with inappropriate (and possibly illegal) questions.

 

[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.

Who cares if they targeted groups who shouldnt even be allowed to apply for tax exempt status? Every liberal, progressive, conservative and KooK 501c4 which engages in any political activity should be stripped of its tax exempt status. No issue any more. No silly "scandal".