Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry but being black is not an exemption from the law, nor is an exemption from an audit.

This is aside from the fact that the NAACP had been operating for decades and had books to audit. The IRS targeted groups that had not been formed and had no books to audit. Lacking books to audit, the IRS demanded the names of everyone that the organization's individual members and unpaid volunteers had donated to, the dates and amounts. It was not an audit, it was simple harassment and done with the purpose of silencing these organizations before they could influence the election.

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

And yet today, you're implying that these Bush appointees set up Obama.

Where are you today?

 

[Missourian]

What is the point of this thread?

If you are saying it was wrong then, you should also believe it is wrong now!

So instead of asking "Where were you then?", I'm asking "Where are YOU now?".

 

[BillyV]

Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

I am sure the conservatives were in an uproar about that!

Right?

So lemme see if I have this straight.

IRS Auditing NAACP = Good.

IRS Auditing Tea Party = Very Very Very VERY VERRY BAAADDD!

FIRE BAD. BAD.

These two issues are completely unrelated. First of all, the IRS was not "auditing" the tea party (or other conservative groups it interfered with); it delayed them from forming during an election cycle. In other words, it prevented them from exercising their rights to free political speech. The NAACP, on the other hand, was audited, and rightly so. You see, the national NAACP is a 501 (C) (3) entity; that means contributions are tax deductible and there are very strict rules to prevent those types of charitable entities from engaging in partisan politics. Why? Because the US government, through the tax expenditures created by the charitable contribution deduction, is basically funding the activities of this type of organization, and allowing them to be partisan would allow the government (especially the party in power) to fund political campaigns with public money. Other provisions of chapter 501 (C) allow for political groups to act as non-profit entities and do not tax them on the contributions they collect, but do not allow for a tax deduction for the donor. It's night and day, and based upon the rhetoric of the organization in 2004, the IRS was correct in investigating whether any of the funds collected as charitable contributions were used in partisan "electioneering".

If these groups weren't politically motivated..where is the harm?

Oh yeah.

They were politically motivated. And WERE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.

This is starting to fall apart.

Which groups? Your reply makes no sense. The conservative groups in the recent case were designed to be political groups, and were organized under the section of the tax code that allows for politics to be their focus. The NAACP was organized as a charitable organization, and is therefore precluded from engaging in partisan politics. Even they are aware of this, as this link shows:

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/Election%20Year%20DOs%20and%20DON'Ts.pdf

I'm sure you wouldn't want churches (mainly supporting the right) to be involved in partisan electioneering; why would you defend the NAACP?

 

[Sallow]

Sorry but being black is not an exemption from the law, nor is an exemption from an audit.

This is aside from the fact that the NAACP had been operating for decades and had books to audit. The IRS targeted groups that had not been formed and had no books to audit. Lacking books to audit, the IRS demanded the names of everyone that the organization's individual members and unpaid volunteers had donated to, the dates and amounts. It was not an audit, it was simple harassment and done with the purpose of silencing these organizations before they could influence the election.

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

And yet today, you're implying that these Bush appointees set up Obama.

Where are you today?

Am I?

Well, then there should be no problem calling them into these whizbang hearings, right?

So they can clear the air and proclaim their innocence. You know, like Gonzoles was called before the Fast and Furious hearings?

 

[Katzndogz]

Sorry but being black is not an exemption from the law, nor is an exemption from an audit.

This is aside from the fact that the NAACP had been operating for decades and had books to audit. The IRS targeted groups that had not been formed and had no books to audit. Lacking books to audit, the IRS demanded the names of everyone that the organization's individual members and unpaid volunteers had donated to, the dates and amounts. It was not an audit, it was simple harassment and done with the purpose of silencing these organizations before they could influence the election.

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

And yet today, you're implying that these Bush appointees set up Obama.

Where are you today?

Bush is omnipotent. He knew in 2005 that obama would be elected and started the set up early.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

And yet today, you're implying that these Bush appointees set up Obama.

Where are you today?

Am I?

Well, then there should be no problem calling them into these whizbang hearings, right?

So they can clear the air and proclaim their innocence. You know, like Gonzoles was called before the Fast and Furious hearings?

Yes, you are. Even if they did get called into the hearings, you'd just claim they are lying if they didn't say "Bush made us do it."

You're a complete hack, and not a very bright one at that.

 

[Sallow]

These two issues are completely unrelated. First of all, the IRS was not "auditing" the tea party (or other conservative groups it interfered with); it delayed them from forming during an election cycle. In other words, it prevented them from exercising their rights to free political speech. The NAACP, on the other hand, was audited, and rightly so. You see, the national NAACP is a 501 (C) (3) entity; that means contributions are tax deductible and there are very strict rules to prevent those types of charitable entities from engaging in partisan politics. Why? Because the US government, through the tax expenditures created by the charitable contribution deduction, is basically funding the activities of this type of organization, and allowing them to be partisan would allow the government (especially the party in power) to fund political campaigns with public money. Other provisions of chapter 501 (C) allow for political groups to act as non-profit entities and do not tax them on the contributions they collect, but do not allow for a tax deduction for the donor. It's night and day, and based upon the rhetoric of the organization in 2004, the IRS was correct in investigating whether any of the funds collected as charitable contributions were used in partisan "electioneering".

If these groups weren't politically motivated..where is the harm?

Oh yeah.

They were politically motivated. And WERE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.

This is starting to fall apart.

Which groups? Your reply makes no sense. The conservative groups in the recent case were designed to be political groups, and were organized under the section of the tax code that allows for politics to be their focus. The NAACP was organized as a charitable organization, and is therefore precluded from engaging in partisan politics. Even they are aware of this, as this link shows:

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/Election%20Year%20DOs%20and%20DON'Ts.pdf

I'm sure you wouldn't want churches (mainly supporting the right) to be involved in partisan electioneering; why would you defend the NAACP?

Well no..it doesn't:

501(c)(3)

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[8][9] There are also supporting organizations which are often referred to in shorthand form as "Friends of" organizations.[10][11][12][13][14]
501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

And yet today, you're implying that these Bush appointees set up Obama.

Where are you today?

Am I?

Well, then there should be no problem calling them into these whizbang hearings, right?

So they can clear the air and proclaim their innocence. You know, like Gonzoles was called before the Fast and Furious hearings?

Yes, you are. Even if they did get called into the hearings, you'd just claim they are lying if they didn't say "Bush made us do it."

You're a complete hack, and not a very bright one at that.

They won't be called unless there is a massive Democratic movement to get them called.

Bank on it.

Conservatives want yet another vehicle to impeach Obama.

And this has very little to do with process and/or procedure.

 

[BlindBoo]

Where were the Republicans in 2004, when the NAACP was audited?

I'm sure they dressed in their finest white robes while attending the weekly cross-burning and discussed it. <-----Sarcasm intended.

and which party had the grand wizard. but you be a good little german soldier so ya don't have to think for yurself.

History shows both parties were steeped in racism and the Klan.

 

[BillyV]

If these groups weren't politically motivated..where is the harm?

Oh yeah.

They were politically motivated. And WERE INVOLVED IN POLITICS.

This is starting to fall apart.

Which groups? Your reply makes no sense. The conservative groups in the recent case were designed to be political groups, and were organized under the section of the tax code that allows for politics to be their focus. The NAACP was organized as a charitable organization, and is therefore precluded from engaging in partisan politics. Even they are aware of this, as this link shows:

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/Election%20Year%20DOs%20and%20DON'Ts.pdf

I'm sure you wouldn't want churches (mainly supporting the right) to be involved in partisan electioneering; why would you defend the NAACP?

Well no..it doesn't:

501(c)(3)

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[8][9] There are also supporting organizations which are often referred to in shorthand form as "Friends of" organizations.[10][11][12][13][14]
501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, yes, it does:

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[32] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[33] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[34]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[35] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[36]


501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Which groups? Your reply makes no sense. The conservative groups in the recent case were designed to be political groups, and were organized under the section of the tax code that allows for politics to be their focus. The NAACP was organized as a charitable organization, and is therefore precluded from engaging in partisan politics. Even they are aware of this, as this link shows:

http://action.naacp.org/page/-/Election%20Year%20DOs%20and%20DON'Ts.pdf

I'm sure you wouldn't want churches (mainly supporting the right) to be involved in partisan electioneering; why would you defend the NAACP?

Well no..it doesn't:

Well, yes, it does:

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[32] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[33] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[34]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[35] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[36]


501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You even bother to read it?

 

[NoNukes]

Sorry but being black is not an exemption from the law, nor is an exemption from an audit.

This is aside from the fact that the NAACP had been operating for decades and had books to audit. The IRS targeted groups that had not been formed and had no books to audit. Lacking books to audit, the IRS demanded the names of everyone that the organization's individual members and unpaid volunteers had donated to, the dates and amounts. It was not an audit, it was simple harassment and done with the purpose of silencing these organizations before they could influence the election.

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

They were behind it, that is where they were.

 

[NoNukes]

What is the point of this thread?

If you are saying it was wrong then, you should also believe it is wrong now!

So instead of asking "Where were you then?", I'm asking "Where are YOU now?".

He is discussing right wing hypocrisy and hysteria. It should be pretty obvious.

 

[Sallow]

What is the point of this thread?

If you are saying it was wrong then, you should also believe it is wrong now!

So instead of asking "Where were you then?", I'm asking "Where are YOU now?".

Precedence is an important concept to the law.

Somehow, in the world of conservativism, that's been completely forgotten.

 

[NoNukes]

I'm sure they dressed in their finest white robes while attending the weekly cross-burning and discussed it. <-----Sarcasm intended.

and which party had the grand wizard. but you be a good little german soldier so ya don't have to think for yurself.

History shows both parties were steeped in racism and the Klan.

One of them still is, can you guess which one? I will give you a hint, most members of this party are white.

 

[Sallow]

Sorry but being black is not an exemption from the law, nor is an exemption from an audit.

This is aside from the fact that the NAACP had been operating for decades and had books to audit. The IRS targeted groups that had not been formed and had no books to audit. Lacking books to audit, the IRS demanded the names of everyone that the organization's individual members and unpaid volunteers had donated to, the dates and amounts. It was not an audit, it was simple harassment and done with the purpose of silencing these organizations before they could influence the election.

Except the tax exempt status points out they are NOT suppose to be "influencing" elections.

Anywhoo..



It's funny that Bush made a speech drawing lines in terms of people that supported his effort to make war and people that didn't.

He said, either you are with us..or against us.

Then, anyone who criticized or questioned this stance got into deep trouble.

Shinseki questioned the strategy? Forced out.
NAACP criticized the war? 2 year audit.
Rangel suggests that the draft be reinstated? Audit and embarrassed.
Several churches speak out against the war? Audits.

Where were you guys back then?

They were behind it, that is where they were.

Absolutely.

Back then? This behavior was a good thing.

Now it's bad.

What's changed?

 

[jknowgood]

Lol, you mean the same ncaacp that continued a boycott on south carolina. After they got the confederate flag off the state house? Well it failed, ad they lost all creditbility after that.

 

[Sallow]

Lol, you mean the same ncaacp that continued a boycott on south carolina. After they got the confederate flag off the state house? Well it failed, ad they lost all creditbility after that.

And that merited an audit?

 

[BillyV]

Well no..it doesn't:

Well, yes, it does:

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[32] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[33] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[34]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[35] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[36]


501(c) organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You even bother to read it?

And can you define "social welfare"? The IRS defines it as follows: "To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)."

Social Welfare Purposes

Pretty broad guidelines that could certainly apply to "promoting liberty" or "advocating for the reduction of government debt".

These groups are allowed to to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don’t run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.
What is a 501(c)(4), anyway?

 

[jknowgood]

Lol, you mean the same ncaacp that continued a boycott on south carolina. After they got the confederate flag off the state house? Well it failed, ad they lost all creditbility after that.

And that merited an audit?

They don't deserve anything, the organization isn't needed, and no longer looks after the advancement of colored people. They are a joke.