IRS targeting Conservative groups

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

The IRS has admitted it has targeted Conservative groups (groups with the names like Tea Party and Patriot).
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-tax-records/2013/05/10/e36dfe5a-b9b7-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

This is unacceptable. No matter your politics one should defend government neutrality in dealing with groups or individuals.

This is stupid. Tea Party groups say the government is over reaching it's authority into people's lives. And the IRS proves them right.

Which parties would call themselves progressive?

Also, if I worked for the IRS. I'd skim through the things marked Tea Party and Patriot as-well, they don't seem to have much to do in the way of charity, as far as I can recall there's been several Tea Party groups (Excuse me, Dozens) exposed for allowing large transfers of money to political candidates and doing so using tax-exempt status earned by fraud, the crimes of the past should not so easily be forgotten. To top it off it wasn't even intentional that these employees took shortcuts, it was individual decisions and not one of the organization as a whole.

This article has visible bias, and by visible I mean it's reeking of it.

I'd try to sympathize with the 'patriots' in the Tea Party. But quite frankly, I'm having a hard enough time gathering any for the Republican Party, so having some for the corrupt, dishonest fringe extremist right-wing political 'grass-root movement' that is the Tea-Party is neigh-impossible.

If you are a conservative group, you are by definition political, and therefore not eligible for tax-exempt status, which is what they were using "Tea Party" and "Patriot" as keywords to check on. This is a manufactoversy, nothing more.

Edit: Also, "This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach." Really? This is worse than torture, imprisonment without trial, and going to war without authorisation?

http://news.yahoo.com/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups-144349480.html

The IRS has admitted they did wrong. That the IRS DID wrong is not a partisan opinion. It is a fact.

Ask yourselves if the IRS targeted groups with the word Progressive would it be ok? The IRS because of the power it holds must be nonpartisan. This something that everyone should agree on

Oh please, "targeted" sounds like they're going to order drone strikes. All they did was apply some extra scrutiny when processing forms for tax-exempt status. Which just sounds like common sense if they're from groups that are quite publicly opposed to taxes of any kind at all.
I suspect the reason they apologized is because it's simply easier that way.
Reminds of Scientology in europe screaming "government oppression" at the top of their lungs when they were merely being investigated.

So the IRS did its job. The only way this is a controversy is if their focus on certain groups led to other groups being able to gallop all over tax law. Given the limited scope of this incident, I doubt this is the case.

Charles_Martel:

Ask yourselves if the IRS targeted groups with the word Progressive would it be ok?

Yes, yes it would be okay. What would piss me off is if the IRS were actively trying to avoid scrutinizing certain groups. Like if they had just covered their eyes and rubber stamped groups with the word "Progressive" in them.

Heh.

All of a sudden profiling is wrong when (anti-tax, anti-government) "conservative" is the profile. Come on guys, it's just statistics. Yeesh!

Huh. Am I missing something here? It's not as if this is some criminal profiling that some in congress would like to pass on some middle eastern religious groups.

This is simply the IRS doing it's job. It's scrutinizing groups which are against paying taxes.

Every conservative is going to jump on me for this but basically the reason the IRS was at fault is because they weren't PC enough. So tell me if my logic is flawed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578474983310370360.html

A whole host of new 501(c)(4) tax exempt groups pop up between 2010 and 2012. Many of these groups had the name Tea Party or conservative in their title and are to be listed as social welfare groups. These applications more than doubled so to process these requests they where sent to a Cincinnati office. At this office there was a big question as to what legal rights these groups promoted, I mean seriously what legal does a tea party group promote aside from political activity(which is not allowed to be the primary focus of the group). So 300 group total where flagged, of those 75 had patriot or tea party in the title.

So in order to ensure that things where done correctly the group looked specifically at groups that had shaky proof of social welfare. So by basically labeling these groups and not being sensitive to the way they where named or flagged the IRS was not being politically correct in how to label these groups besides what they saw as the group name. These groups where probably justifiably flagged but in an unjustified way.

So yeah someone has to answer to these accusations because what was done procedurally was wrong. However the severity of the punishment needs to be decided by a few unanswered questions like why did the IRS ask about the identities of donors when that is normally asked for this type of filing and was there a well thought out rational for flagging because of the name or purely because one guy in charge saw political news and decided they wanted to go down that route.

Wow, what? People are actually defending them here? You're not showing any bias at all *rolls eyes*

The IRS came out and admitted the wrong. They broke the story themselves. For anyone to say "they didn't really do anything wrong" is so fucking asinine... I just... wow. I know the posters here are more intelligent than this.

MichiganMuscle77:
Wow, what? People are actually defending them here? You're not showing any bias at all *rolls eyes*

The IRS came out and admitted the wrong. They broke the story themselves. For anyone to say "they didn't really do anything wrong" is so fucking asinine... I just... wow. I know the posters here are more intelligent than this.

I started this thread for two reasons. One - there not a thread on the subject. Two - It was reasonableness test
Everyone no matter their political orientation should agree that the IRS was in the wrong. Knowing the majority of the posters here I can't say I'm surprised (disappointed yes) by the results. Hopefully lurkers will be enlightened.

apparently a lot of people here would have performed the same crime if they worked for the IRS

Hammartroll:
apparently a lot of people here would have performed the same crime if they worked for the IRS

Doesn't surprise me about the liberal bent of the forums here. Their defenses of something clearly illegal makes me laugh my ass off, though.

Charles_Martel:
Everyone no matter their political orientation should agree that the IRS was in the wrong.

As everyone, no matter their political orientation, should agree that racial profiling is wrong. Always. Yes?

Seanchaidh:

Charles_Martel:
Everyone no matter their political orientation should agree that the IRS was in the wrong.

As everyone, no matter their political orientation, should agree that racial profiling is wrong. Always. Yes?

So are you saying that what the IRS did was a just retaliation? Even if they deserved it in some ludacris sense I hardly think that's what was going through the agents' minds when doing it. Really I think it's the other way around, more a case of failing to practice what you preach. What with them championing equal treatment, but failing to follow through when contending with their own biases.

Seanchaidh:

Charles_Martel:
Everyone no matter their political orientation should agree that the IRS was in the wrong.

As everyone, no matter their political orientation, should agree that racial profiling is wrong. Always. Yes?

Start a thread on racial profiling if you want but if you can't see why the IRS should be apolitical and above reproach I don't know what to say to you. It should be a given like 2 + 2 = 4.

Charles_Martel:

Seanchaidh:

Charles_Martel:
Everyone no matter their political orientation should agree that the IRS was in the wrong.

As everyone, no matter their political orientation, should agree that racial profiling is wrong. Always. Yes?

Start a thread on racial profiling if you want but if you can't see why the IRS should be apolitical and above reproach I don't know what to say to you. It should be a given like 2 + 2 = 4.

That the IRS should be apolitical (and that this case is a violation of that) seems to be about as obvious as that racial profiling is wrong. Yes or no?

As you said: "No matter your politics one should defend government neutrality in dealing with groups or individuals." and "This should be like 2+2=4."

Hammartroll:
ludacris

This post will have nothing to do with the topic at hand, sorry in advance.

I just wanted to say I think it's incredible that it only took one rapper to change the way an entire generation spells the word ludicrous.

Really sorry for the post dedicated to ridicule, but I saw this once before recently and it made me very giddy inside to see it again.

Iiiinteresting...

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the "absolutely inappropriate" actions by "front-line people" were not driven by partisan motives.

Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry - including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors - simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.

Yeah... no... guys in this thread: They don't actually apologise for "Targeting conservative groups." So to treat their apology as an admission of guilt for that particular act is unreasonable. "Inappropriate," does not mean "wrong."

You can accuse them of sliminess tho.

They constituted about one-quarter of the 300 groups who were flagged for additional analysis by employees of the IRS tax-exempt unit's main office in Cincinnati.

It was not clear whether the IRS had anticipated the firestorm that it would ignite with its disclosure. Indeed, it appeared to have happened by chance when Lerner, appearing Friday at a conference held by the American Bar Association, responded to a question about the allegations by conservative groups.

...
Of the 300 groups affected, the IRS said, 130 have had their tax-exempt status approved and 25 have withdrawn their applications.

Only a quarter? And it seems like they didn't think they were doing anything wrong...

And only 130 had their status approved? Less than half? Seems like they did a good job of picking the right ones for a double-check.

...
One of the nation's largest tea party groups, the Tea Party Patriots, said it rejected the IRS's explanation and demanded the resignations of all officials involved. The group also called on President Obama to apologize for ignoring its concerns.

Did they say why they rejected the explanation? I can quite easily imagine some isolated statistician being completely oblivious to the political sensitivity of a decision to filter organisations based on name.

Also, Eh? It's not like Obama has any clue that this stuff even goes on. He's got more important stuff to do- why ask for him to apologise? It should be the head of the department above who apologises.

"The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power," said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots. "This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach."

Erm... mountains out of molehills, much? Those politicians seriously need to tone down their hyperbole dials.

...There will be an investigation...

That can be particularly difficult to determine in the case of groups that operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The law grants them an exemption from income taxes on the contributions they receive if they are "social welfare" groups.

It also allows them to engage in political activity and advocacy as long as it is not their primary mission. And while donors to those organizations are not allowed a tax deduction for what they give, they can remain anonymous.

The number of organizations applying for tax-exempt status under that provision more than doubled after 2010, Lerner said. It was a scramble that began after the Supreme Court lifted the ban on corporate and union spending in political campaigns, a move that was seen as a green light for outside groups to become more involved, as well.

Both Democratic- and Republican-allied interests have formed such organizations, but the conservative groups have raised vastly more money.

Hmmm... seems like this is more complicated than it first appears. You can make untaxed, untraceable donations to groups as long as they spend it on "social welfare?" Political affiliations aside, that sounds like an easy way to launder money- I know that if news of a bill like that came out of Russia I'd be highly suspicious.

"This, frankly, isn't enough," he said. "We need to have ironclad guarantees from the IRS that it will adopt significant protocols to ensure this kind of harassment of groups that have a constitutional right to express their own views never happens again."

Lerner would not say whether any of the IRS employees involved have been disciplined. She said that policies have been put in place to prohibit this kind of screening and that so far, none of the 75 groups has been rejected for tax-exempt status.

Jay Sekulow, a lawyer representing 16 tea party groups, said Friday that he was gratified by the IRS acknowledgment.

"This admission by the IRS represents a significant victory for free speech and freedom of association," he said. "There was never any doubt that these organizations complied with the law and applied for tax-exempt status for their activities as Americans have done for decades."

All this rhetoric makes me sick. No wonder there's so many whackos over there.

dmase:
Every conservative is going to jump on me for this but basically the reason the IRS was at fault is because they weren't PC enough. So tell me if my logic is flawed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323744604578474983310370360.html

A whole host of new 501(c)(4) tax exempt groups pop up between 2010 and 2012. Many of these groups had the name Tea Party or conservative in their title and are to be listed as social welfare groups. These applications more than doubled so to process these requests they where sent to a Cincinnati office. At this office there was a big question as to what legal rights these groups promoted, I mean seriously what legal does a tea party group promote aside from political activity(which is not allowed to be the primary focus of the group). So 300 group total where flagged, of those 75 had patriot or tea party in the title.

So in order to ensure that things where done correctly the group looked specifically at groups that had shaky proof of social welfare. So by basically labeling these groups and not being sensitive to the way they where named or flagged the IRS was not being politically correct in how to label these groups besides what they saw as the group name. These groups where probably justifiably flagged but in an unjustified way.

So yeah someone has to answer to these accusations because what was done procedurally was wrong. However the severity of the punishment needs to be decided by a few unanswered questions like why did the IRS ask about the identities of donors when that is normally asked for this type of filing and was there a well thought out rational for flagging because of the name or purely because one guy in charge saw political news and decided they wanted to go down that route.

This seems to be pretty much the case.

I expect what happened was some guy in lower management wanted to save time by putting into place a filter- any groups with politically affiliated words in their names were to be double-checked.

I don't know an awful lot about the private political sector in the USA, but it seems like there's much more linguistic conformity across their interest groups than those of the liberals. Words like Patriot, American, Tea-Party, Libertarian, and such seem to crop up more often, while the democratic-leaning interest groups I recall off the top of my head are more issue-based than ideological groups.

If that is the case, then I could understand why someone made the decision to do a bit of profiling, and it ended up only really affecting right-wing groups. It's like a policeman going out looking for guys in balaclavas, and questioning a tonne of black people. It's hard to tell if he was genuinely looking for balaclavas, or black skin.

I suppose that's what the inquiry is set to find out.

I'll pass judgement when the findings are in rather than jerking my knee at the apparent "oppression," and making much ado about nothing.

Hammartroll:
So are you saying that what the IRS did was a just retaliation?

No. That would be what's known as a strawman.

What the person you quoted was getting at is that it's hilarious to see some people talking about "liberals" bending over backwards to defend this. Of course, by resorting to such transparent partisan name calling, you imply that somehow conservatives are a bastion of fairness and free of bias. Of course, anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand would know that the same conservatives they seem to be associating themselves with have been guilty of far worse than unfairly targeting some groups for more stringent confirmation of their non-profit status.

But here's the real issue I have with this: the IRS admitted, by their own volition, that they did something wrong, apologized for it and presumably aren't doing it anymore. So the problem was already handled and has likely ended, but one of the major intentions of the OP wasn't to make a thread discussing how horrible this relatively minor and already solved event was, but rather to see how many people would or wouldn't get worked up about it, then take the moral high ground on those who disagreed so he can stroke his own ego and feel good about how awesome he is.

But if you wanted a litmus test that was actually interesting, I'd like to see how posters like yourself, Big Willie, and Charles Martel feel about things like racial profiling. Because that's not only a much bigger issue, but they should also be against it for the same reasons they have an issue with this IRS issue that was already over before anyone even found out about it.

Lilani:

Hammartroll:
ludacris

This post will have nothing to do with the topic at hand, sorry in advance.

I just wanted to say I think it's incredible that it only took one rapper to change the way an entire generation spells the word ludicrous.

Really sorry for the post dedicated to ridicule, but I saw this once before recently and it made me very giddy inside to see it again.

I just sounded it out, I even used Google to verify but I did't bother to notice the first wiki result was about a rapper.

I love the logic.

Repubs: "Hey, dems did something shitty, should be punished for it."
Dems: "BUT BUT YOU GUYS DID SOMETHING SHITTY TOO SO WHAT WE DID IS OK"

Personally, I don't classify myself as a republican. I call bullshit when I see it. I speak out when the republicans do bad things, I speak out when the democrats do bad things. It doesn't MATTER what BUSH did or what the right has done in the past when we're talking about an individual issue.

MichiganMuscle77:
I love the logic.

Repubs: "Hey, dems did something shitty, should be punished for it."
Dems: "BUT BUT YOU GUYS DID SOMETHING SHITTY TOO SO WHAT WE DID IS OK"

Personally, I don't classify myself as a republican. I call bullshit when I see it. I speak out when the republicans do bad things, I speak out when the democrats do bad things. It doesn't MATTER what BUSH did or what the right has done in the past when we're talking about an individual issue.

Erm...

It actually seems like the logic most people are using is along the lines of:

> "Is this inappropriate profiling?"
> "Deluge of groups wanting tax exempt status after bill X allows them to exist"
> "Loads of groups with unambiguously political names"
> "Clearly you'd want to check them twice because they're most likely to be lying about their intentions"
> "It just so happens that these groups are right-wing..."

It rests on the assumption that the right half of the US interest-group-spectrum has more unambiguously political names than the left half, and more such right-wing-named groups are being made. It'd be interesting to see the full list of all applications and see what ones they pulled out in context.

~~~~~~~~~

The guy above (sean) who is going "Oh? So profiling is bad now," is actually agreeing with you: he's pointing out that right-wing people are only up in arms about this apparent profiling because it's targeting right-wing people, while they likely ignore or even partake in racial profiling regarding Blacks, Arabs, Chinese, etc.. etc..

He's calling out bullshit just like you- by speaking out against apparent right-wing hypocrisy. At no point does he actually advocate profiling. He's only advocating ideological consistency.

Sigh. RE Danny Ocean - Excuse me for substituting wrong for "absolutely inappropriate" (clever of you to leave off the absolutely) in my paraphrasing of the IRS apology.

Hmm This sentence must not raise eyebrows - That touch I gave that woman was absolutely inappropriate but it was not wrong.

Vivi22:

Hammartroll:
So are you saying that what the IRS did was a just retaliation?

Of course, by resorting to such transparent partisan name calling, you imply that somehow conservatives are a bastion of fairness and free of bias.

That's also a strawman. You may notice that in my very next statement I said "even if they did deserve it", where I was implying that conservatives indeed are guilty of profiling, partially in an attempt to distance myself from conservatives. Then I added in that it was "ludicrous" (correct spelling this time) to draw this comparison in the first place because, in my opinion, racial profiling is totally irrelevant to this story and bringing it up was a rather contrived way for ardent liberals to strike back at what is a legitimate case of liberal's biases getting the best of them. It's like you're saying "oh yeah well you guys aren't much better", rather than living up to it.

But here's the real issue I have with this: the IRS admitted, by their own volition, that they did something wrong, apologized for it and presumably aren't doing it anymore. So the problem was already handled and has likely ended, but one of the major intentions of the OP wasn't to make a thread discussing how horrible this relatively minor and already solved event was, but rather to see how many people would or wouldn't get worked up about it, then take the moral high ground on those who disagreed so he can stroke his own ego and feel good about how awesome he is.

Personally I think the affected groups deserve compensation for being treated unfairly, after all they were losing money to the IRS during the time that they should have had tax exempt status. So I personally don't think it ends with an apology and besides that this thread immediately evolved into an entirely different subject, that is the hypocrisy of liberals and conservatives.

But if you wanted a litmus test that was actually interesting, I'd like to see how posters like yourself, Big Willie, and Charles Martel feel about things like racial profiling. Because that's not only a much bigger issue, but they should also be against it for the same reasons they have an issue with this IRS issue that was already over before anyone even found out about it.

Not entirely a conservative here. I was once a follower of Ron Paul who would constantly point out during debates that not all terrorists are Arabs. There are more white terrorists than any other in the US and there are even more Jewish terrorists than Muslim terrorists in the US, so stop making an assumption of yourself.

Is no-one else bothered that the implication of the IRS placing special attention on some groups must be that it lacks the resources to do proper checks on everyone?

Agema:
Is no-one else bothered that the implication of the IRS placing special attention on some groups must be that it lacks the resources to do proper checks on everyone?

Well, I mean, that's already the pattern. Most people aren't audited, either.

MichiganMuscle77:
I love the logic.

Repubs: "Hey, dems did something shitty, should be punished for it."
Dems: "BUT BUT YOU GUYS DID SOMETHING SHITTY TOO SO WHAT WE DID IS OK"

Personally, I don't classify myself as a republican. I call bullshit when I see it. I speak out when the republicans do bad things, I speak out when the democrats do bad things. It doesn't MATTER what BUSH did or what the right has done in the past when we're talking about an individual issue.

Whatever one's take on what is actually going on in this story, if profiling conservative groups is wrong when it comes to taxes, and this is not just a matter of opinion but a "reasonableness test", then drawing the comparison to any other kind of profiling is entirely justified. When a person makes a statement like "No matter your politics one should defend government neutrality in dealing with groups or individuals", he opens himself to the question of whether he really means it-- or whether it only applies when it is one kind of group (possibly) being profiled and not another.

Agema:
Is no-one else bothered that the implication of the IRS placing special attention on some groups must be that it lacks the resources to do proper checks on everyone?

The Right-wing avoids that exact point dileberately.
Everyone else has to defend the fact that they didn't do anything wrong.

Nikolaz72:
Which parties would call themselves progressive?

Also, if I worked for the IRS. I'd skim through the things marked Tea Party and Patriot as-well, they don't seem to have much to do in the way of charity, as far as I can recall there's been several Tea Party groups (Excuse me, Dozens) exposed for allowing large transfers of money to political candidates and doing so using tax-exempt status earned by fraud, the crimes of the past should not so easily be forgotten. To top it off it wasn't even intentional that these employees took shortcuts, it was individual decisions and not one of the organization as a whole.

This article has visible bias, and by visible I mean it's reeking of it.

I'd try to sympathize with the 'patriots' in the Tea Party. But quite frankly, I'm having a hard enough time gathering any for the Republican Party, so having some for the corrupt, dishonest fringe extremist right-wing political 'grass-root movement' that is the Tea-Party is neigh-impossible.

With names like these, I'd have thought them PACs, which are supposed to be tax exempt. At best it sounds like they may have been using the wrong tax form? Formed incorrectly? ITMT, I'm reading that the IRS was demanding lists of contributors. Why would that not frighten contributor's?

Charles_Martel:
Sigh. RE Danny Ocean - Excuse me for substituting wrong for "absolutely inappropriate" (clever of you to leave off the absolutely) in my paraphrasing of the IRS apology.

Hmm This sentence must not raise eyebrows - That touch I gave that woman was absolutely inappropriate but it was not wrong.

That was not your paraphrasing. I was quoting the original news article upon which your linked opinion piece was based. Although both are coloured by shades of pre-judgement and selective truth-telling, I figured the original piece was a more reliable source of information because the whole point of an opinion piece is to reflect someone else's bias.

I didn't leave off the "absolutely" on purpose. Either way it makes no difference. Politicians and executives make non-apologies like this all the time. At a glance or out of the corner of your ear they sound like apologies, but when examined they're not actually admitting fault for anything. Lines like:

"Mistakes were made."
"I'm sorry that you feel that way."

These are commonly used rhetorical tricks to avoid admission of guilt whilst simultaneously appearing - to those who want to hear it - to admit guilt.

Upon calmer, more objective analysis, the lie becomes apparent.

What I'm saying is not politically biased and is not controversial, it's simply rhetoric.

Gorfias:

Nikolaz72:
Which parties would call themselves progressive?

Also, if I worked for the IRS. I'd skim through the things marked Tea Party and Patriot as-well, they don't seem to have much to do in the way of charity, as far as I can recall there's been several Tea Party groups (Excuse me, Dozens) exposed for allowing large transfers of money to political candidates and doing so using tax-exempt status earned by fraud, the crimes of the past should not so easily be forgotten. To top it off it wasn't even intentional that these employees took shortcuts, it was individual decisions and not one of the organization as a whole.

This article has visible bias, and by visible I mean it's reeking of it.

I'd try to sympathize with the 'patriots' in the Tea Party. But quite frankly, I'm having a hard enough time gathering any for the Republican Party, so having some for the corrupt, dishonest fringe extremist right-wing political 'grass-root movement' that is the Tea-Party is neigh-impossible.

With names like these, I'd have thought them PACs, which are supposed to be tax exempt. At best it sounds like they may have been using the wrong tax form? Formed incorrectly? ITMT, I'm reading that the IRS was demanding lists of contributors. Why would that not frighten contributor's?

To be honest I don't even think PACs 'should' be tax exempt. And I think recording contributers is completely sensible-to hell if it scares them. I think it should be considered fraud to call yourself a grass-root movement when you're backed by some of the largest corporations in the world.

I believe the best system would be that each political candidate could not spend money on anything, and that all advertisement should come with Volunteers. And that politicians in special elected positions should live in certain buildings and have a set salary decided by public vote as to assure that politicians would be 'of the people for the people' rather than 'of the Upper Eschelons of High-Soceity for the Corporate-Interests fuelled by selfish greed'

Alright, that didn't sound very catchy. I dislike corruption with a passion, and the current system clearly encourages-nay enforces it. I feel saddened that stories like this come forth to remind me of how the former Republican Right has been replaced by extremists, getting support for being small but are in truth far more corrupt and self-serving than the ones we once thought extreme that they came to replace.

Used to be I could consider the crazies the ones whom would support a 100% free-market capitalist system for ideological reasons. Now I have to watch out for, and be genuinly scared by the ones whom would 'act' as if they supported such things for ideological reasons all while being paid millions by the like of the Koch-Brothers. To perform an act of serving the religious and the conservative population while really just serving themselves.

And I'd be thankful if such news were not just plastered over partisan left-leaning websites of the US, but over news in general. The fact that they can get away with such things, dismissing it as lies and slander in the face of countless evidence is disgusting, and unnerving.

I truly wish the IRS had the manpower and the money to review the tax statues of every exempt organization on regular intervals. It would probably go a long way in solving our deficit and debt problems.

tbth i don't see what's so shocking about having a look at people who often make it abundantly clear they don't like taxes.
from a certain pov it would seem like very obvious place to look if your job is catching tax dodgers...

Danny Ocean:
Also, Eh? It's not like Obama has any clue that this stuff even goes on. He's got more important stuff to do- why ask for him to apologise? It should be the head of the department above who apologises.

Oh and there's also the little detail that when these reviews were done, the IRS head was Shulman, a Republican appointed by Bush. So what the heck has Obama to do with this?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked