Do You Think The IRS Did Anything Wrong?

[mudwhistle]

Perhaps you've been listening to the wrong media sources. The picture from where I stand is totally different.

I see abuse of government. I see obstruction of justice. I see everything that I've been saying for the last 5 years vindicated by these revelations.

 

[mudwhistle]

First, don't let people forget: the IRS scandal is not about conservative accusations. The Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury issued a report finding that the Internal Revenue Service sharply discriminated against conservative organizations. This is confirmed by Treasury's Inspector General.

Second, a group's political beliefs and positions ought to be totally irrelevant. Tax exemption must be based on what an organization does, not what it believes or what positions it supports. Whether a group teaches the Constitution or teaches union tactics doesn't matter, it is educating either way. Therefore, the IRS should not have been looking at the name of the organization, whether liberal or conservative, but on the substance of the organization.

Third, many people don't realize that nearly all liberal political organizations are tax exempt. There has been a lot of distraction and diversion focused on whether or not the IRS should have scrutinized tea party groups. However, MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood (which has been active in partisan election campaigns), Media Matters, etc., are all tax exempt. Organizations on the Left similar to tea party groups have had tax exempt status forever.

Fourth, don't allow people to wander away from the central point that the scandal is about a double standard -- not whether people believe political organizations should be tax exempt. Conservatives seeking tax exempt status were treated very differently from similarly-situated liberal organizations. Sure, some liberal groups were scrutinized. But conservatives were treated differently.

IRS official Lois Lerner fast-walked the tax-exempt application of Barack Obama's half-brother, the best man at President Obama's wedding. Abon'go "Roy' Malik Obama got tax-exempt status in a bureaucratic breakneck speed, in only 30 days, in May 2011, even though it is unclear what if anything the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does or has done since being approved.

When a conservative organization Media Trackers couldn't get approved after 8 months, it changed its project to the liberal-sounding name "Greenhouse Solutions." With the new name, the exact same project was approved within 3 weeks.

Liberal groups -- even with very political activities -- were systematically approved, and quickly, with relatively little burden or scrutiny, as reported by USA Today.

Groups supporting Israel were discriminated against. In August 2010, a pro-Israel group "Z Street" filed a Federal lawsuit when an IRS staff member admitted that all Israel-related groups were singled out by the IRS for extra scrutiny. There will be a hearing this July 2013, after the case was transferred to the Federal district in Washington, D.C.

The IRS demanded that a Pro-Life group promote abortion in order to get tax-exempt status. No liberal group has such a requirement. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are not required to promote abstinence, adoption, or Pro-Life Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

It is the law that the IRS must answer within 270 days for 501(c)(3) organizations, yet the IRS delayed conservative organizations for more than 540 days.

Fifth, there are many different types of tea party organizations. Some tea party organizations are Political Action Committees (PAC's) which are directly involved in election campaigns. Others focus purely on training tea party organizers and members on how to be effective in organizing events and lobbying on legislation. Some purely educate about the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, etc. Others lobby on pending legislation.

So when the public hears about tea party organizations applying for tax exempt status, they often imagine only campaigning for or against a candidate. That is not tax exempt. Some tea party groups qualify. Some don't.

Sixth, many have questioned whether the IRS wasn't doing the job it should have done by asking questions of tea party groups seeking tax exempt status. No one objects to the IRS obtaining basic information and asking reasonable questions. The problem is that the IRS bombarded tea party and conservative groups with multiple waves of a huge number of very intrusive questions. And the wave after wave of questions seemed aimed at never getting around to finishing the process or persuading groups to simply give up and abandon their application.

Seventh, many don't recognize what 'tax exempt' means. It means that if someone donates to a tea party group, the donations are not taxed as income. Otherwise, any political organization would have to pay income taxes on donations.

A tax-exempt organization may still have to pay taxes on other income, such as sales of products or services. Some C-SPAN callers imagined that people in such groups don't pay income taxes. Of course, people running or working in tax-exempt groups pay income taxes on their salary the same as everyone else.

Read more: Articles: The IRS Scandal -- a Basic Primer
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[Cuyo]

The narrative for you is to try and put the right on the defensive, because it sucks watching your side floundering and needing to be on the defensive. I doubt it will be successful for you on a message board, but it certainly won't be for this administration. Stay tuned for more hearings...and perhaps they can enlighten you.

No, that's false, this isn't even my thread. I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else...

It's being met with a great deal of vitriol, but not much new information.

Do we agree on the facts here? Can we go to summary judgment? Or do you believe there's more to it than what I've stated?

Oh please, this thread is tame so far. I see through your antagonistic "opinion", and can even appreciate your strategy...I just don't think it will be effective. You trained us well with the whole racist narrative, and we're less like to jump at your bidding to defend our views. To most people, even silent dems, this went beyond mismanagement by one of the most powerful arms of the government.

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

 

[mudwhistle]

No, that's false, this isn't even my thread. I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else...

It's being met with a great deal of vitriol, but not much new information.

Do we agree on the facts here? Can we go to summary judgment? Or do you believe there's more to it than what I've stated?

Oh please, this thread is tame so far. I see through your antagonistic "opinion", and can even appreciate your strategy...I just don't think it will be effective. You trained us well with the whole racist narrative, and we're less like to jump at your bidding to defend our views. To most people, even silent dems, this went beyond mismanagement by one of the most powerful arms of the government.

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

Fact is you don't really know, do you?

Oh, and this hogwash about this happening under a Republican appointee doesn't wash. If Obama can escape saying he knows nothing so can the Republican. Fact is Obama has a Republican in several departments and he only wants them there so he can use them as a scapegoat when things go wrong.

 

[Cuyo]

Perhaps you've been listening to the wrong media sources. The picture from where I stand is totally different.

I see abuse of government. I see obstruction of justice. I see everything that I've been saying for the last 5 years vindicated by these revelations.

Yes, and I'm sure it's going to turn the political world on it's head...

What media source should I switch to? American Thinker? Is that where the real skinny's at?

 

[Sherry]

No, that's false, this isn't even my thread. I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else...

It's being met with a great deal of vitriol, but not much new information.

Do we agree on the facts here? Can we go to summary judgment? Or do you believe there's more to it than what I've stated?

Oh please, this thread is tame so far. I see through your antagonistic "opinion", and can even appreciate your strategy...I just don't think it will be effective. You trained us well with the whole racist narrative, and we're less like to jump at your bidding to defend our views. To most people, even silent dems, this went beyond mismanagement by one of the most powerful arms of the government.

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

You're not serious...you are only regurgitating liberal defensive talking points. I don't believe you were even able to keep a straight face while typing any of that.

 

[Cuyo]

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

Fact is you don't really know, do you?

Oh, and this hogwash about this happening under a Republican appointee doesn't wash. If Obama can escape saying he knows nothing so can the Republican. Fact is Obama has a Republican in several departments and he only wants them there so he can use them as a scapegoat when things go wrong.

Good gawd man, will you try to focus?

I _LITERALLY_ just found out it happened under a Republican appointee, like, 15 minutes ago. I only brought it up because it dissolves the potential motive a Democrat might have.

 

[Sherry]

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

Fact is you don't really know, do you?

Oh, and this hogwash about this happening under a Republican appointee doesn't wash. If Obama can escape saying he knows nothing so can the Republican. Fact is Obama has a Republican in several departments and he only wants them there so he can use them as a scapegoat when things go wrong.

Good gawd man, will you try to focus?

I _LITERALLY_ just found out it happened under a Republican appointee, like, 15 minutes ago. I only brought it up because it dissolves the potential motive a Democrat might have.

Right there...zero credibility. Liars dismissed.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh please, this thread is tame so far. I see through your antagonistic "opinion", and can even appreciate your strategy...I just don't think it will be effective. You trained us well with the whole racist narrative, and we're less like to jump at your bidding to defend our views. To most people, even silent dems, this went beyond mismanagement by one of the most powerful arms of the government.

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

You're not serious...you are only regurgitating liberal defensive talking points. I don't believe you were even able to keep a straight face while typing any of that.

Yanno Sherry... I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Can we get a simple statement of fact, direct question: Do you believe anyone was denied status who was indeed eligible?

 

[Sherry]

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

You're not serious...you are only regurgitating liberal defensive talking points. I don't believe you were even able to keep a straight face while typing any of that.

Yanno Sherry... I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Can we get a simple statement of fact, direct question: Do you believe anyone was denied status who was indeed eligible?

We'll never get anywhere, because I don't believe you.

 

[mudwhistle]

"Racist narrative?" That's not just unfounded, but indeed a bizarre accusation...

But anyway, it appears some of the intellectual lightweights have dropped out of the conversation, so, I'm dead serious here: What indication do you have that this was anything more than an attempt to weed out ineligible candidates? Among other things, what's even the motive for the people involved?

Up till now I'm just going off of what I already gathered, but meanwhile I've actually done a little research. Looks like the bulk of the "Scandal" took place under a Republican appointee.

And I've still seen nothing to indicate that ELIGIBLE entities were denied status...

As a right-leaner, you're probably irritated that a lot more right-leaning groups were nabbed then left-leaning; I would be too. But beyond that, where's the scandal?

Do you see a problem here, beyond not giving all entities the same level of increased scrutiny?

Fact is you don't really know, do you?

Oh, and this hogwash about this happening under a Republican appointee doesn't wash. If Obama can escape saying he knows nothing so can the Republican. Fact is Obama has a Republican in several departments and he only wants them there so he can use them as a scapegoat when things go wrong.

Good gawd man, will you try to focus?

I _LITERALLY_ just found out it happened under a Republican appointee, like, 15 minutes ago. I only brought it up because it dissolves the potential motive a Democrat might have.

Bush did it is their usual excuse. They used the Bush appointee as an excuse when the story first surfaced early last week.

Sorry if you're way behind the power-curve.

 

[Cuyo]

Yanno Sherry... I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Can we get a simple statement of fact, direct question: Do you believe anyone was denied status who was indeed eligible?

We'll never get anywhere, because I don't believe you.

Umm... Okay... Which part?

Are you suggesting that I knew it was a Republican appointee all along? I didn't, but anyway... Does that mean you can't even answer the question?

 

[boedicca]

Yanno Sherry... I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Can we get a simple statement of fact, direct question: Do you believe anyone was denied status who was indeed eligible?

We'll never get anywhere, because I don't believe you.

Umm... Okay... Which part?

Are you suggesting that I knew it was a Republican appointee all along? I didn't, but anyway... Does that mean you can't even answer the question?

You really are determined to miss the point.

The germane issue here is that the IRS' targeting of conservatives is INTIMIDATION which interefered with and discouraged conservative groups' exercise of first amendment rights. Whether or not anyone was denied or who appointed which commissioner is irrelevant. The IRS itself is a corrupt Big Government organization which took its cue from its Big Government paymasters to squash anyone who challenged the agenda to restrain government growth.

 

[Sherry]

Yanno Sherry... I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Can we get a simple statement of fact, direct question: Do you believe anyone was denied status who was indeed eligible?

We'll never get anywhere, because I don't believe you.

Umm... Okay... Which part?

Are you suggesting that I knew it was a Republican appointee all along? I didn't, but anyway... Does that mean you can't even answer the question?

I just don't care to engage with untrustworthy people...you've really disappointed me. Don't tell my mom that I called you a liar.

 

[Cuyo]

We'll never get anywhere, because I don't believe you.

Umm... Okay... Which part?

Are you suggesting that I knew it was a Republican appointee all along? I didn't, but anyway... Does that mean you can't even answer the question?

You really are determined to miss the point.

The germane issue here is that the IRS' targeting of conservatives is INTIMIDATION which interefered with and discouraged conservative groups' exercise of first amendment rights. Whether or not anyone was denied or who appointed which commissioner is irrelevant. The IRS itself is a corrupt Big Government organization which took its cue from its Big Government paymasters to squash anyone who challenged the agenda to restrain government growth.

No, I don't miss the point. I'm trying to determine if that's the only point. 4 pages later you finally [Albeit, passive-aggressively] admit that it is.

Since these "Conservative" groups reached a point where they became axiomatic with ineligible applicants... I don't see the problem. Although I've stated repeatedly here and in other threads that if I was of that persuasion, I might see, or at least fake, outrage.

While it may have left groups with other motivations ill-monitored... That's the only crime here.

Until I hear otherwise...

 

[boedicca]

Then enjoy breathing sand, bub.

 

[Cuyo]

Will do, 'bub.'

 

[mudwhistle]

Yanno Sherry... I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Can we get a simple statement of fact, direct question: Do you believe anyone was denied status who was indeed eligible?

We'll never get anywhere, because I don't believe you.

Umm... Okay... Which part?

Are you suggesting that I knew it was a Republican appointee all along? I didn't, but anyway... Does that mean you can't even answer the question?

We heard that Bush appointee nonsense Monday or Tuesday. It's getting to the point this is Obama's knee-jerk reaction to everything.

Nobody mentioned what the Bush appointee's name was. Just that it was a Bush appointee, thus Bush's fault 4.5 years after he left office.

 

[The Professor]

Yes, the IRS overreached. Yes, the left hates the right, and so that is enough justification in their minds for it to be acceptable.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least the bulk of the "Scandal" involved targeting, and not actually un-justified denial of status, correct?

Seems that the IRS lower-middle-management found a fairly efficient strategy for identifying political entities intent on abusing non-profit status.

Where's the problem?

Well, there is that thing about the IRS leaking information to the press, and there is no justification for that. In fact, that could be the biggest issue of all since personal information can be used to intimidate or discredit a political opponent.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, the IRS overreached. Yes, the left hates the right, and so that is enough justification in their minds for it to be acceptable.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least the bulk of the "Scandal" involved targeting, and not actually un-justified denial of status, correct?

Seems that the IRS lower-middle-management found a fairly efficient strategy for identifying political entities intent on abusing non-profit status.

Where's the problem?

Well, there is that thing about the IRS leaking information to the press, and there is no justification for that. In fact, that could be the biggest issue of all since personal information can be used to intimidate or discredit a political opponent.

The IRS leaked confidential information from applications to at least one George Soros funded group. And not so coincidentally, Obama's campaign smeared wealthy individuals who donated to Romney.