IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#328
#328
Good thing the IRS don't have the power to destroy a person's personal life. I know I sleep better with our government overlords watching over us in our little miserable lives.
 
#331
#331
This is such a joke.

Republicans blast IRS for keeping scandal quiet, seek names of those responsible | Fox News

Lawmakers repeatedly confronted Steven Miller -- the acting commissioner ousted from him job earlier this week -- about his and other officials' failure to disclose the program last year despite being aware of it.

"In fact, we were repeatedly told no such targeting was happening. That isn't being misled, that's lying," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Yet Miller seemed to frustrate lawmakers' attempts to dig deeper. He claimed, a week after the scandal broke and a year after he first learned of the practice, that he still did not know who was responsible.

"I don't have that name," he testified, after Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., asked who was behind the program. Reichert accused Miller of being "uncooperative during this hearing."

Miller also claimed -- over and over -- he was being honest with Congress during a hearing last year.

"You did not share the information you knew," Reichert charged.

"I answered all questions truthfully," Miller replied.

This claim was met with deep skepticism Friday. Miller acknowledged he learned of the practice during a May 3, 2012, briefing. Yet when he was asked about it at a July 25 hearing that year, he said only that some applications fell into a particular category - and that those organizations were grouped for "consistency" and "quality."
Click to expand...
 
#332
#332
Looks like what happened here is that the IRS checked nonprofits for political activity by searching for key words. Some conservative organizations used those key words and some liberal organizations used those words. Both were flagged.
 
#333
#333
Vol Main said:
Looks like what happened here is that the IRS checked nonprofits for political activity by searching for key words. Some conservative organizations used those key words and some liberal organizations used those words. Both were flagged.
Click to expand...

Based on what exactly? Where is this coming from? Nobody has reported that "progress" or "liberal" or any other term like those was flagged. Nobody.
 
#335
#335
lawgator1 said:
Conservative groups were just a third of those examined.
Click to expand...

the number gets bigger every time the story is told. The first number you pinned your hopes on was 75 but that number has risen to almost 500 now. How high you think it will go?

Vol Main said:
Looks like what happened here is that the IRS checked nonprofits for political activity by searching for key words. Some conservative organizations used those key words and some liberal organizations used those words. Both were flagged.
Click to expand...

link to the key words used for liberal groups? Please note that the use of "Tea Prty" or "Patriot" is not usually associated with liberal groups
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#337
#337
utvolpj said:
the number gets bigger every time the story is told. The first number you pinned your hopes on was 75 but that number has risen to almost 500 now. How high you think it will go?

link to the key words used for liberal groups?
Click to expand...

Well I don't have a link for you, but I think everybody can agree that the IRS should only flag liberal groups. Conservative groups should be exempt.
 
#339
#339
Vol Main said:
Well I don't have a link for you,
Click to expand...

and likely never will because those words were never included

Vol Main said:
but I think everybody can agree that the IRS should only flag liberal groups. Conservative groups should be exempt.
Click to expand...

never said that either. I think they should all pay taxes along will all churches. No one should be exempt from their fair share
 
#340
#340
utvolpj said:
never said that either. I think they should all pay taxes along will all churches. No one should be exempt from their fair share
Click to expand...


No doubt 501(c)(3) and (4) have been so abused and manipulated we ought to consider repealing them altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#341
#341
utvolpj said:
and likely never will because those words were never included



never said that either. I think they should all pay taxes along will all churches. No one should be exempt from their fair share
Click to expand...

Well, if you think conservative nonprofits with tax exempt status should be flagged for political activity, then how do you suggest that the IRS identify their political activity? If it doesn't use words, what should it use?
 
#342
#342
Vol Main said:
Well, if you think conservative nonprofits with tax exempt status should be flagged for political activity, then how do you suggest that the IRS identify their political activity? If it doesn't use words, what should it use?
Click to expand...

its choice of key words targeted one segment of the political spectrum exclusively. If they are going to institute a practice of flagging certain words then it should be applied to all groups equally or just eliminate the practice. That would have already happened if their intent was to only catch the ones active in political activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#343
#343
utvolpj said:
its choice of key words targeted one segment of the political spectrum exclusively. If they are going to institute a practice of flagging certain words then it should be applied to all groups equally or just eliminate the practice. That would have already happened if their intent was to only catch the ones active in political activity.
Click to expand...

So you do not believe that liberal nonprofits were also flagged? They were. We're just not being told what words were used to flag them.

Politics is the purpose of the Tea Party. That's no secret; they are very open about it. So using the words "tea party" to flag nonprofits is a perfectly sensible thing for the IRS to do. It is also perfectly sensible for the IRS to deny them tax deductions. Wouldn't surprise me if the Tea Party has its own caucus in the House?

You want me to tell you what words the IRS used to flag liberal political nonprofits. I can't do that because the press is not reporting that information. Also, if I do that then your gang will attack me personally for googling the information.
 
Last edited:
#345
#345
lawgator1 said:
Huh?

The main criticism from the GOP has been that right wing groups were "targeted." I mean, look at the title of this thread.

The primary bone of contention on that is whether the IRS employees who paid more attention to groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their names has been the suspicion that this was done either as retaliation for their criticism of Obama, or as an intimidation tactic.

No Tea Party or right wing group ultimately had their application denied. The ONLY group who had its application denied was "Emerge America," a progressive group from Maine whose mission is to train Democratic women to run for office.

The ironies are rich. First, the original group got 501(c)4) status from the IRS under the Bush administration. But when the Maine-based chapter had its application denied under the Obama administration, it actually led to revocation of the status for the entire entity. And, their new statutory organization actually requires that they list their donors.

Meet the group the IRS actually denied: Democrats! - Salon.com

So let's include that fact in our estimation of what is really going wrong here. IF the purpose of these reviews was to screen out Tea Party groups, then why did they all get approved, and the only one denied is a group devoted to getting women members of the Democratic party to run for office? Does that sound like there is some conspiracy between Democrats in the WH and the IRS to run off TP applicants?

Or, is it more likely that what you have here is a problem of employees not being given direction and a "looseness" in interpretation of what is mean by the phrase "social welfare"?

I am all for finding out whether someone within the government organized this for a political reason and, if so, dealing with them accordingly. But I am also for basing such accusations on fact. And right now, there are facts, such as I post above, which are not at all consistent with the theory being espoused by those of you insisting this was an organized scheme to go after the TP.

It just doesn't make sense that, if that were true, they'd all get approved, and an organization that promotes Democractic women running for office would be the only one turned down.
Click to expand...

Did you read the letters explaining the denial and revocation? It clearly explains why the IRS took the action it did and was justified in doing so. I would have no problem with them taking the same action against any group conducting themselves outside of the established law as this group was.

But then again, I doubt you read the letters.
 
#349
#349
Vol Main said:
So please tell me how they were flagged. You can google; I won't attack you personally for doing that.
Click to expand...

you made the claim. Please provide a link if they were truly flagged by a political key word/phrase like "tea Party"

I'm sure some are reviewed to make sure they are worthy but lib groups were not auto-denied based on their group name. If they were we would already have that info
 
#350
#350
utvolpj said:
you made the initial claim. Please provide a link if they were truly flagged by a political key word/phrase like "tea Party"

I'm sure some are reviewed to make sure they are worthy but lib groups were not auto-denied based on their group name. If they were we would already have that info
Click to expand...

What is the evidence that any group was auto denied? You made that claim, so please give me a link. I won't lead a mob against you for using google to obtain information. Some groups took longer to receive their status, because they were chartered for blatant political purposes and should not have received tax deductible status at all.

If you can think of a way the IRS flagged them without using key words, then please tell me. Maybe an airplane drew an arrow in the sky pointing to them. Nah. The IRS is supposed to look at all applicants, so what's the big deal about putting the most obvious self advertised political groups at the top of the pile and holding them back?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top