›

So this whole IRS thing....

BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
edited May 2013 in Strut Central
Absolutely no Soulstrut thoughts on this? Really?
«1345

  Comments

  • kitchenknightkitchenknight 4,922 Posts
    My honest thoughts:

    I have no problem with them giving extra scrutiny to groups that are openly railing against paying taxes. They'd be among the first places I'd look.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    I'm pretty sure it went a little bit farther than that
  • FlomotionFlomotion 2,391 Posts
    Using the state apparatus to target your ideological foes has echoes of McCarthyism with the polarity reversed, even if they are tax dodgers...
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,475 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    I'm pretty sure it went a little bit farther than that

    It didn't, though.

    The end result was these groups had to wait a little bit longer for their tax-exempt status to be confirmed. That's it.

    Also:

    *This was hardly "targeting the Tea Party BLARGH!" when we're talking 90 out of around 250 investigations.

    *Lots of liberal groups got the exact same treatment now, and lots of liberal groups got the exact same treatment during the Bush years, yet there was no OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!

    *As was said upthread, if you're going to call yourself a non-political group, yet everything you do is political, do you really think you shouldn't have your status checked?

    *The fact that this happened at only one field office points to this being something that originated at that office, not from ObamaStalinMcCarthyHitler demanding the IRS crush his political opponents and grind their bones into dust.
  • SoundOutLoudSoundOutLoud 172 Posts
    gareth said:
    My honest thoughts:
    I have no problem with them giving extra scrutiny to groups that are openly railing against paying taxes. They'd be among the first places I'd look.
    Never thought about it that way.... Makes sense.
  • GatorToofGatorToof 582 Posts
    Taxes have always been difficult for me to understand, kinda like microbes.

    Maybe I should just call the Better Business Bureau next time I feel like making a complaint.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    DJ_Enki said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    I'm pretty sure it went a little bit farther than that

    It didn't, though.

    The end result was these groups had to wait a little bit longer for their tax-exempt status to be confirmed. That's it.
    I'm pretty sure releasing not yet approved applications to the media does not fall under the FOIA.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    DJ_Enki said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    I'm pretty sure it went a little bit farther than that

    It didn't, though.

    The end result was these groups had to wait a little bit longer for their tax-exempt status to be confirmed. That's it.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/14/irs-audit-finds-bias-so-burdensome-that-targeted-g/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

    The auditors also said the IRS delayed decisions on some conservative groups??? applications for more than three years. Some applicants simply gave up.

    Three years is a "little bit longer"?
  • kitchenknightkitchenknight 4,922 Posts
    DJ_Enki said:

    *The fact that this happened at only one field office points to this being something that originated at that office, not from ObamaStalinMcCarthyHitler demanding the IRS crush his political opponents and grind their bones into dust.

    That is the other thing- this has already been shown to be a group of low level operatives in one field office, under a supervisor appointed by Bush.

    Here's a good summary in Forbes (not exactly Mother Jones) on how this is not much of a political scandal.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/10/no-dirty-politics-in-irs-investigations-of-tea-party/2/
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    "You should reject these voices."



    C'mon, kids, get with the overturning of the Constitution. We'll be sitting pretty in our FEMA-run re-education centers hopped up on Prozak and gmo peanut butter watching endless episodes of The View while all of those stuffy malcontents who used to burden us with reminders of lost concepts like habeas corpus rot in mental institutions being continuously lobotomized until the last .22 caliber pistols they've stashed up their keesters finally slide out into our grips. Only then will the world be safe from the terrorism of our own invention.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    DJ_Enki said:
    *This was hardly "targeting the Tea Party BLARGH!" when we're talking 90 out of around 250 investigations.
    I don't know about you but where I'm from we consider 36% significant.

    From the Washington Post article linked above:

    The auditors said the IRS reviewed every single application that used ???tea party,??? ???patriot??? or ???9/12??? in their names. Even as they were scrutinizing those groups, the IRS ignored other applications that should have raised flags, the auditors said.

    *As was said upthread, if you're going to call yourself a non-political group, yet everything you do is political, do you really think you shouldn't have your status checked?

    Anything that qualifies for a 501(c)(4) can be construed and ultimately consider political. Don't kid yourself.

    *The fact that this happened at only one field office points to this being something that originated at that office, not from ObamaStalinMcCarthyHitler demanding the IRS crush his political opponents and grind their bones into dust.

    Agreed. I don't think anyone credible has attributed this to Obama. Let's see how the investigation goes.

    Politics aside, no government (agency) should have the power to protect itself from something that threatens its existence. Fox guarding the henhouse sitch.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    gareth said:
    DJ_Enki said:

    *The fact that this happened at only one field office points to this being something that originated at that office, not from ObamaStalinMcCarthyHitler demanding the IRS crush his political opponents and grind their bones into dust.

    That is the other thing- this has already been shown to be a group of low level operatives in one field office, under a supervisor appointed by Bush.

    Here's a good summary in Forbes (not exactly Mother Jones) on how this is not much of a political scandal.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/10/no-dirty-politics-in-irs-investigations-of-tea-party/2/

    Do you think this would be receiving the same reaction if it was disclosed immediately after being discovered?
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    Much ado about nothing, at least right now. Who knows what a deeper investigation will bring, if anything?

    Any reason for the GOP to not talk about their lack of ideas...
  • white_teawhite_tea 3,262 Posts
    [
    From the Washington Post article linked above:

    Minor point but you linked to a Washington Times article, a publication that isn't exactly agendaless.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    get the fuck out of here with that petty bullshit. everything i quoted from that article is being reported everywhere else. please try harder.

    and whoops on post != times, i was busy catching up on the latest weiner puns on the real post (nypost)
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,475 Posts
    Bon Vivant said:
    Much ado about nothing, at least right now. Who knows what a deeper investigation will bring, if anything?

    Any reason for the GOP to not talk about their lack of ideas...

    Well, they're about to make their 37th attempt at repealing Obamacare...so there's that.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Treating this as a GOP issue when it could and does happen to groups of people regardless of political affiliation is completely missing the point.
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    Treating this as a GOP issue when it could and does happen to groups of people regardless of political affiliation is completely missing the point.

    My understanding is the whole point of this is that conservative groups (GOP) are allegedly the ones "unfairly" targeted.

    If it it happens to groups of people regardless of group affiliatiion, it sounds like the IRS is merely following the law regarding investigating those that seek tax exempt status for their organization. That would make this kerfuffle a non-issue, IMO.

    There is no right to tax exempt status, and those who seek it should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. At least that's what the law is, and should be.
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    DJ_Enki said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    Much ado about nothing, at least right now. Who knows what a deeper investigation will bring, if anything?

    Any reason for the GOP to not talk about their lack of ideas...

    Well, they're about to make their 37th attempt at repealing Obamacare...so there's that.

    Yeah, have to the give the new Congressmen and chance to vote against it, lest they be primaried for being soft.
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:


    Anything that qualifies for a 501(c)(4) can be construed and ultimately consider political. Don't kid yourself.
    .

    This is a really good point. But, this speaks to the way the law is applied, as opposed to the way it's written, IMO.

    The 501c3 clause is really vague, though.
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    This is an egregious attack on these groups civil liberties.

    It's not the biggest political scandal, and government attacks on anti-government groups is nothing new.

    But if you are a liberal or a progressive, you should be protesting this, not defending the government.

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/irs-abuses-power-targeting-tea-party
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Bon Vivant said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    Treating this as a GOP issue when it could and does happen to groups of people regardless of political affiliation is completely missing the point.

    My understanding is the whole point of this is that conservative groups (GOP) are allegedly the ones "unfairly" targeted.

    If it it happens to groups of people regardless of group affiliatiion, it sounds like the IRS is merely following the law regarding investigating those that seek tax exempt status for their organization. That would make this kerfuffle a non-issue, IMO.

    There is no right to tax exempt status, and those who seek it should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. At least that's what the law is.
    I should have and meant to qualify that by mentioning that something like this is not isolated to just the IRS but all government agencies. It happens everywhere but it is seen as a non-issue here because of the folks involved. I don't see how baseless profiling is okay in a case like this but not in many others that this board has posted on.

    In this case, the percentage of cases that were placed under review that fell under the evil freedom fighter profile was material enough that red flags should have been raised instantly. If a majority of the individuals filing these applications had tax issues in the past, I would take no issue with further investigation of their applications. If they were pushing for tax reform and fell under the proper definition of 501(c)(4), there is absolutely no reason why their applications should have received any more scrutiny than the next application.
  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Bon Vivant said:
    PatrickCrazy said:


    Anything that qualifies for a 501(c)(4) can be construed and ultimately consider political. Don't kid yourself.
    .

    This is a really good point. But, this speaks to the way the law is applied, as opposed to the way it's written, IMO.

    The 501c3 clause is really vague, though.
    You're arguing my point. It's written vaguely so application is up to the individual's interpretation. There's nothing remotely close to a black and white test for this. c4 mentions that the organization in question needs to "exclusively promote social welfare". What these momos in Cincinnati office consider "social welfare" could be completely opposite to what the majority of the people in the location of the applications consider it to be.
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    PatrickCrazy said:


    Anything that qualifies for a 501(c)(4) can be construed and ultimately consider political. Don't kid yourself.
    .

    This is a really good point. But, this speaks to the way the law is applied, as opposed to the way it's written, IMO.

    The 501c3 clause is really vague, though.
    You're arguing my point. It's written vaguely so application is up to the individual's interpretation. There's nothing remotely close to a black and white test for this. c4 mentions that the organization in question needs to "exclusively promote social welfare". What these momos in Cincinnati office consider "social welfare" could be completely opposite to what the majority of the people in the location of the applications consider it to be.

    I agree, but that kind of takes the "government is out to get us" thunder away from this issue, IMO.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,987 Posts
    Using the IRS to target political foes and spying on the media sound like things that most folks here would oppose.

    b/w

    When Rangel tells the Prez to 'fess up there's deep shit going on
  • kitchenknightkitchenknight 4,922 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Using the IRS to target political foes and spying on the media sound like things that most folks here would oppose.

    b/w

    When Rangel tells the Prez to 'fess up there's deep shit going on

    Who is "using the IRS to target political foes"? As said, this seems to be a fairly contained issue. As Jonathan Chait pointed out in a column for NYMag today, because of Watergate laws, the president is not allowed to have any contact with the IRS.
  • vajdaijvajdaij 447 Posts
    Even if this is 'contained' to rogue employees in Cincinnati, it shows a real lack of supervision in the IRS shop. And there's the question of the timeline - who knew what when they appeared in front of Congress. See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584497/the-irs-targeting-controversy-a-timeline/

    It may not be limited to Tea Party groups - see http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israel-related-groups-also-pointed-to-irs-scrutiny-91298.html.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,987 Posts
    gareth said:
    My honest thoughts:

    I have no problem with them giving extra scrutiny to groups that are openly railing against paying taxes. They'd be among the first places I'd look.

    Let me get this straight...

    The IRS had no problem giving groups who WANTED to pay taxes, tax exempt status, so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes.

    But delayed giving the same status for up to 3 years to other groups(all of which just happened to be Conservative) because they don't want to pay taxes.

    Huh....Wha??
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,475 Posts
    vajdaij said:

    It wasn't limited to Tea Party groups at all--hell, Tea Party groups weren't even the majority (here's Progress Texas getting the same treatment). They're just the ones who have the severe persecution complex and therefore whined the loudest.
  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    Rockadelic said:


    But delayed giving the same status for up to 3 years to other groups(all of which just happened to be Conservative) because they don't want to pay taxes.

    This is not correct.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...cmpid=politics

    IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row


    So, the "woe is me, I'm singled out because I'm conservative" meme is untrue.

    Also, last time I checked 72 out of 298 is hardly "all".

    Further, none of the conservative groups were denied tax exempt status. Dem groups were denied, though. This moaning on the right stems from them having to wait longer than usual for something they aren't entitled to in the first place. Conservatives love to play the victim.

    Good grief.
Sign In or Register to comment.