Issa pulls Race Card - makes false claims Cummings was labeling him racist

[The Rabbi]

No, Democrats didn't label Issa racist after Cummings tantrum as one lying thread title here reads.

The irrelevant Jessie Jackson tweeted a dumbass tweet. He was dead wrong, and beyond a random idiot here or there, no one is calling Issa a racist for that Cummings incident, and certainly Cummings isn't calling him that.

However, ISSA is claiming Cummings was leveling a charge of racism when Cummings said Issa was "shutting down the minority voice."


Check it out, Issa's excuso-rama with Megyn Kelly where he twisted Cummings comment about "shutting down the minority voice" into Cummings accusing Issa of racism --

Imagine for a moment if you people were as outraged about the IRS targeting people for their political views as you are about Issa being rude to a Democrat

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

But that isnt' what happened. What did happen was that Democrats put pressure on the IRS to rein in conservative groups.
Why do you have not a problem with that?

 

[Plasmaball]

Imagine for a moment if you people were as outraged about the IRS targeting people for their political views as you are about Issa being rude to a Democrat

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

But that isnt' what happened. What did happen was that Democrats put pressure on the IRS to rein in conservative groups.
Why do you have not a problem with that?

lol....nothing you say is ever the truth

 

[paperview]

Here's an interesting (in retrospect) Fox Business News story -- from 2011, --

Where they unwittingly Foxsplain the troubles with non-profit status and how ...er, taxed the IRS is in manpower and trying to make sense of the dizzying rules:

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

(Remember when FoxNewsNation was trying to get Americans to sic the IRS on Media Matters? That was a powerful campaign - complete with links to IRS complaint forms saying "go get 'em IRS..."

"The IRS tries to be strict about nonprofit politicking.

But nonprofits often get away with questionable activity via tortured readings of an already tortured tax law.


Moreover, the IRS only has several thousand workers to cover an estimated 1.5 million nonprofits with $1.4 trillion in revenues and an estimated $4.3 trillion in assets, roughly the size of India.

That, along with having to annually match 230 million returns with 1.4 billion information documents, has turned many IRS service centers into neurotic paper factories that look like something out of an anxiety dream.

That is an enoooooooooooormous amount of money there, 4.3 trillion in assets? Yow. 1.5 million nonprofits? Ayi yi yi.

Some more:

Also, tax returns come in a year or more after alleged abuses, Owens notes. So the IRS often has to "play catch up with abusive nonprofits."


And that means judgment calls through the years on letting taxpayers effectively subsidize questionable nonprofit activity, judgment calls which can lead to equivocation and quibbling.
...
"The tax code is full of incentives for anyone to arrange their affairs to not pay taxes."

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

 

[The Rabbi]

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

But that isnt' what happened. What did happen was that Democrats put pressure on the IRS to rein in conservative groups.
Why do you have not a problem with that?

lol....nothing you say is ever the truth

Your posts are brilliant and insightful.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

For people who constantly discredit Fox you sure d9 quote them a lot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's an interesting (in retrospect) Fox Business News story -- from 2011, --

Where they unwittingly Foxsplain the troubles with non-profit status and how ...er, taxed the IRS is in manpower and trying to make sense of the dizzying rules:

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

(Remember when FoxNewsNation was trying to get Americans to sic the IRS on Media Matters? That was a powerful campaign - complete with links to IRS complaint forms saying "go get 'em IRS..."

"The IRS tries to be strict about nonprofit politicking.

But nonprofits often get away with questionable activity via tortured readings of an already tortured tax law.


Moreover, the IRS only has several thousand workers to cover an estimated 1.5 million nonprofits with $1.4 trillion in revenues and an estimated $4.3 trillion in assets, roughly the size of India.

That, along with having to annually match 230 million returns with 1.4 billion information documents, has turned many IRS service centers into neurotic paper factories that look like something out of an anxiety dream.

That is an enoooooooooooormous amount of money there, 4.3 trillion in assets? Yow. 1.5 million nonprofits? Ayi yi yi.

Some more:

Also, tax returns come in a year or more after alleged abuses, Owens notes. So the IRS often has to "play catch up with abusive nonprofits."


And that means judgment calls through the years on letting taxpayers effectively subsidize questionable nonprofit activity, judgment calls which can lead to equivocation and quibbling.
...
"The tax code is full of incentives for anyone to arrange their affairs to not pay taxes."

Former White House Counsel to IRS: Pull Media Matters? Tax-Exempt Status | Fox Business

Deflection.
One of the original talking points of the adminsitration is that they were understaffed and this accounted for the delays in processing requests.
It was shown they had more staff prior to the election than they had had in previous years.

So again, it is clear the Democrats were using the IRS to suppress conservative political groups. Do you think this was not the case? Do you think it's OK if it was the case? Why are you not outraged by it?

 

[The T]

But that isnt' what happened. What did happen was that Democrats put pressure on the IRS to rein in conservative groups.
Why do you have not a problem with that?

lol....nothing you say is ever the truth

Your posts are brilliant and insightful.

I would add twerpish.

 

[The Rabbi]

For people who constantly discredit Fox you sure d9 quote them a lot.

They claim we get all our news from Rush Limbaugh. I think the libs listen to him more than conservatives do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, Democrats didn't label Issa racist after Cummings tantrum as one lying thread title here reads.

The irrelevant Jessie Jackson tweeted a dumbass tweet. He was dead wrong, and beyond a random idiot here or there, no one is calling Issa a racist for that Cummings incident, and certainly Cummings isn't calling him that.

However, ISSA is claiming Cummings was leveling a charge of racism when Cummings said Issa was "shutting down the minority voice."


Check it out, Issa's excuso-rama with Megyn Kelly where he twisted Cummings comment about "shutting down the minority voice" into Cummings accusing Issa of racism --

Imagine for a moment if you people were as outraged about the IRS targeting people for their political views as you are about Issa being rude to a Democrat

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

Correct.

And the problem is there are many on the partisan right, such as Issa, attempting to contrive a controversy with the lie that the Obama Administration authorized the scrutiny of TPM applicants, and is now involved in a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘cover up’ that authorization.

These hearings are a fiasco because they’re nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, having nothing to do with ‘finding the truth,’ and everything with ‘getting rid of Obama.’

 

[The Rabbi]

lol....nothing you say is ever the truth

Your posts are brilliant and insightful.

I would add twerpish.

Content-free and blithering would be closer to the truth.

 

[paperview]

The IRS Circa 2010, 11, (CU was decided Jan, 2010) -- were absolutely hammered with applications brought on by the Citizens United decision, that with formulating new rules and a dizzying amount of judgement calls based on just how much is too much politics. The only thing they can go by is the political nature - if it exists - of what most certainly are orgs devoted to politicking than social welfare.

One more small snippet from that 2011 article by Fox Business (well before the Lerner incident) : "Political activity or acting on behalf of partisan donors cannot comprise a substantial part of a nonprofit's activity, IRS spokesman Eric Smith says.

Joseph DeTrane, a nonprofit expert at Grant Thornton, agrees. "If political activity is the primary purpose of nonprofit, it risks losing its exempt status," he says."

Is anyone going to seriously make the case a "non profit" like Karl Rove's Crossroads dark money group, for example, was not primarily about political activity?

Do tea party groups maintain their primary purpose is not about political activity?

 

[The Rabbi]

Imagine for a moment if you people were as outraged about the IRS targeting people for their political views as you are about Issa being rude to a Democrat

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

Correct.

And the problem is there are many on the partisan right, such as Issa, attempting to contrive a controversy with the lie that the Obama Administration authorized the scrutiny of TPM applicants, and is now involved in a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘cover up’ that authorization.

These hearings are a fiasco because they’re nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, having nothing to do with ‘finding the truth,’ and everything with ‘getting rid of Obama.’

Please post where Issa said the administration authorized this scrutiny.
It is clear from Lerner's emails she was under pressure to rein in conservative groups after the Supreme COurt's Citizens United ruling. Who put that pressure on her?
Recall the IRS has already apologized for singling out conservative groups. SO you cannot claim it never happened.

 

[The Rabbi]

The IRS Circa 2010, 11, (CU was decided Jan, 2010) -- were absolutely hammered with applications brought on by the Citizens United decision, that with formulating new rules and a dizzying amount of judgement calls based on just how much is too much politics. The only thing they can go by is the political nature - if it exists - of what most certainly are orgs devoted to politicking than social welfare.

One more small snippet from that 2011 article by Fox Business (well before the Lerner incident) : "Political activity or acting on behalf of partisan donors cannot comprise a substantial part of a nonprofit's activity, IRS spokesman Eric Smith says.

Joseph DeTrane, a nonprofit expert at Grant Thornton, agrees. "If political activity is the primary purpose of nonprofit, it risks losing its exempt status," he says."

Is anyone going to seriously make the case a "non profit" like Karl Rove's Crossroads dark money group, for example, was not primarily about political activity?

Do tea party groups maintain their primary purpose is not about political activity?

Another discredited lie of this adminsitration. There were fewer applications when this was going on than there had been previously.
Are you going to claim it was a few rogue agents in Cincinnati? Maybe that a conservative Republican lawyer was behind it all?
You are merely repeating lies this administration has told to cover up what happened.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

But that isnt' what happened. What did happen was that Democrats put pressure on the IRS to rein in conservative groups.
Why do you have not a problem with that?

lol....nothing you say is ever the truth

He is 100% accurate. Just because you're ill informed doesn't make everyone else wrong.

 

[paperview]

Imagine for a moment if you people were as outraged about the IRS targeting people for their political views as you are about Issa being rude to a Democrat

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

Correct.

And the problem is there are many on the partisan right, such as Issa, attempting to contrive a controversy with the lie that the Obama Administration authorized the scrutiny of TPM applicants, and is now involved in a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘cover up’ that authorization.

These hearings are a fiasco because they’re nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, having nothing to do with ‘finding the truth,’ and everything with ‘getting rid of Obama.’

That was made clear (as if we didn't see it before) when Issa did not want Lerner to give her testimony unless it was with Lights Camera Action! She offered to talk without immunity -- but sans the camera's, to the full committee, and with a written deposition which would be a matter of public record --

he didn't want that. That tells us it wasn't about getting to the truth. And dammit, I want to know the truth. If there were crimes committed at the IRS, I want to know it.

But no, It's all about the Dog, Pony, and cameras in his "cut the mic" kangaroo court.

 

[paperview]

The IRS Circa 2010, 11, (CU was decided Jan, 2010) -- were absolutely hammered with applications brought on by the Citizens United decision, that with formulating new rules and a dizzying amount of judgement calls based on just how much is too much politics. The only thing they can go by is the political nature - if it exists - of what most certainly are orgs devoted to politicking than social welfare.

One more small snippet from that 2011 article by Fox Business (well before the Lerner incident) : "Political activity or acting on behalf of partisan donors cannot comprise a substantial part of a nonprofit's activity, IRS spokesman Eric Smith says.

Joseph DeTrane, a nonprofit expert at Grant Thornton, agrees. "If political activity is the primary purpose of nonprofit, it risks losing its exempt status," he says."

Is anyone going to seriously make the case a "non profit" like Karl Rove's Crossroads dark money group, for example, was not primarily about political activity?

Do tea party groups maintain their primary purpose is not about political activity?

Another discredited lie of this adminsitration. There were fewer applications when this was going on than there had been previously. ...

^ That is one humungonous pile of shit right there. ^

 

[Plasmaball]

But that isnt' what happened. What did happen was that Democrats put pressure on the IRS to rein in conservative groups.
Why do you have not a problem with that?

lol....nothing you say is ever the truth

He is 100% accurate. Just because you're ill informed doesn't make everyone else wrong.

no he isnt.

 

[The Rabbi]

I have no problem, left or right, with the IRS scrutinizing the applications of political groups who try and use the nonprofit tax-exempt status of what has been categorized as a Social Welfare org - when their purpose is primarily political.

that goes for Occupy, Green groups or Tea Party - no matter. If they are trying to scam the system, they need to be scrutinized.

Correct.

And the problem is there are many on the partisan right, such as Issa, attempting to contrive a controversy with the lie that the Obama Administration authorized the scrutiny of TPM applicants, and is now involved in a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘cover up’ that authorization.

These hearings are a fiasco because they’re nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, having nothing to do with ‘finding the truth,’ and everything with ‘getting rid of Obama.’

That was made clear (as if we didn't see it before) when Issa did not want Lerner to give her testimony unless it was with Lights Camera Action! She offered to talk without immunity -- but sans the camera's, to the full committee, and with a written deposition which would be a matter of public record --

he didn't want that. That tells us it wasn't about getting to the truth. And dammit, I want to know the truth. If there were crimes committed at the IRS, I want to know it.

But no, It's all about the Dog, Pony, and cameras in his "cut the mic" kangaroo court.

You never answered the question as to what difference it would make if she gave her testimony privately, which was recorded, or publicly.
Probably because it is easier to repeat this particular lie.

 

[natstew]

When a black Congressman says, "shutting down the minority voice" He damn sure means shutting down the black voice.

 

[The Rabbi]

The IRS Circa 2010, 11, (CU was decided Jan, 2010) -- were absolutely hammered with applications brought on by the Citizens United decision, that with formulating new rules and a dizzying amount of judgement calls based on just how much is too much politics. The only thing they can go by is the political nature - if it exists - of what most certainly are orgs devoted to politicking than social welfare.

One more small snippet from that 2011 article by Fox Business (well before the Lerner incident) : "Political activity or acting on behalf of partisan donors cannot comprise a substantial part of a nonprofit's activity, IRS spokesman Eric Smith says.

Joseph DeTrane, a nonprofit expert at Grant Thornton, agrees. "If political activity is the primary purpose of nonprofit, it risks losing its exempt status," he says."

Is anyone going to seriously make the case a "non profit" like Karl Rove's Crossroads dark money group, for example, was not primarily about political activity?

Do tea party groups maintain their primary purpose is not about political activity?

Another discredited lie of this adminsitration. There were fewer applications when this was going on than there had been previously. ...

^ That is one humungonous pile of shit right there. ^

Applications for Tax-Exempt Status Were Down When IRS Began Targeting Tea Party

Cue "It's Breitbart" retort in 3...2...1....