IRS admits to targeting Conservative groups

#378
#378
lawgator1 said:
I'm going to set aside the racial issue with the TP for the moment, since you are using that as a red herring.

I'm saying two things:

1) There is actually no proof at this point to support the claim that this was political. The proof is to the contrary. If such proof comes to light, then that has to be dealt with, and severely.

2) Moving forward, we ought to either end the 501(c)(4) exemption altogether, or we ought to clarify that political groups absolutely don't get the exemption, left or right.
Click to expand...

And that is the root of my "red herring." There is no proof whatsoever of your racist claims either. However, where there is smoke there is fire. And I'm sorry if I were an IRS agent and an organization whose main goal is to not only strip my organization's power that it has enjoyed for nearly a century, but to effectively put me on the unemployment line. Yeah, I'd definitely target them.

And honestly you are the only person siting there is no proof by the way. I was hesitant to even touch this at first, but as time moves on, you are appearing more and more wrong.

And honestly I completely agree with point 2. Non profits are a joke from top to bottom. Even the pure charitable organizations are a joke. You donate to the cancer society thinking you are truly helping find a cure, when in reality the majority of your donations are just paying a lot of people's salaries first and foremost.

But top to bottom the IRS is nothing more than a political weapon, and as long as it exists it will remain the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#379
#379
I haven't read anything in this thread as of yet lately & I want to jump in here to say that Mr.Kelly is beating up Mr. Miller on Capital Hill today. It's like drill baby drill all over again. Mr.Miller is really in the "hot seat" today answering or trying to answer question thrown his way. It's on Fox News right now and it's great watching these pinheads sweat before millions of people looking in. Heck, even Charlie Rangel was giving Mr.Miller hell on his questions.
 
Last edited:
#381
#381
VOLinthaNATI said:
So it was done just for fun?

(I suppose, We actually could argue that it was considering Miller was leaving anyway early next month)
Click to expand...


No, it was wrong to do it, but they claim that it was because of the large growth of such organizations at the time and concern that they weren't all what they purported to be. Wrong to use those names to screen them? Absolutely. Motivated due to dislike to the TP? Not necessarily. And as I say, the fact that none got outright denied, whereas we know a Dem one did, suggests a non-political motivation.

The investigations will deal with that.

At any rate, repeal 501(c)(4) and end the problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#383
#383
lawgator1 said:
No, it was wrong to do it, but they claim that it was because of the large growth of such organizations at the time and concern that they weren't all what they purported to be. Wrong to use those names to screen them? Absolutely. Motivated due to dislike to the TP? Not necessarily. And as I say, the fact that none got outright denied, whereas we know a Dem one did, suggests a non-political motivation.
Click to expand...

:banghead2:
 
#385
#385
lawgator1 said:
No, it was wrong to do it, but they claim that it was because of the large growth of such organizations at the time and concern that they weren't all what they purported to be. Wrong to use those names to screen them? Absolutely. Motivated due to dislike to the TP? Not necessarily. And as I say, the fact that none got outright denied, whereas we know a Dem one did, suggests a non-political motivation.

The investigations will deal with that.

At any rate, repeal 501(c)(4) and end the problem?
Click to expand...

By repeal 501(c)(4) do you mean repeal all limitations for tax deductible status? Do you mean to make lobbying businesses and all political contributions tax deductible?
 
#386
#386
Vol Main said:
By repeal 501(c)(4) do you mean repeal all limitations for tax deductible status? Do yo mean to make lobbying businesses and all political contributions tax deductible?
Click to expand...


Don't give them an exemption. These organizations are incorporated in their respective states. They would be treated as all corporations are. Contributions would be reported as income and taxed, just as any ordinary corporate income would be.

Their purpose ought to have nothing to do with it, and in fact if we didn't have people subjectively deciding Group A does have that purpose, whereas B does not, then you'd avoid even the opportunity for mischief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#387
#387
lawgator1 said:
And as I say, the fact that none got outright denied, whereas we know a Dem one did, suggests a non-political motivation.
Click to expand...

or it suggests that their tactics were only used to provide data and never had any merit to begin with
 
#388
#388
utvolpj said:
or it suggests that their tactics were only used to provide data and never had any merit to begin with
Click to expand...

So you just ignore the fact that the Tea Party has a caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives within the Republican Party. If you don't mind my asking, how do you rationalize your integrity with that kind of behavior?
 
#390
#390
Vol Main said:
So you just ignore the fact that the Tea Party has a caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives within the Republican Party. If you don't mind my asking, how do you rationalize your integrity with that kind of behavior?
Click to expand...

Tea Party is not necessarily in the Repub party unless your claim is all Repubs belong to the TP. Quite a few people would identify with the original ideas of the TP and not classify themselves are Repubs (like myself)

I listed other caucus names that were not included. and there are lots more. Of course you claim words like "progressive" are not political so it's easy to ignore

utvolpj said:
only if they also included the following:

Blue Dog
Progressive
Black
Hispanic
Asian Pacific
Pacific Islander
Sikh
Bike
Diversity
Innovation
Click to expand...

the issue is the unfair targeting of a political opponent to the current administration which in at least a few instances gathered info their were not legally allowed to obtain. This was being done on a much larger scale than we were led to believe and is actually happening in more than one agency. How you can continue to justify this behavior is beyond me
 
#391
#391
Not all Republicans are in the TP, but I'd venture to say that the number of people in the TP who voted for a Democrat for federal office is going to be right around zippity do dah, whereas the number of TP votes for Republicans was in the millions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#392
#392
lawgator1 said:
Don't give them an exemption. These organizations are incorporated in their respective states. They would be treated as all corporations are. Contributions would be reported as income and taxed, just as any ordinary corporate income would be.

Their purpose ought to have nothing to do with it, and in fact if we didn't have people subjectively deciding Group A does have that purpose, whereas B does not, then you'd avoid even the opportunity for mischief.
Click to expand...

So you want to tax all money contributed to nonprofit corporations established for education and social welfare. That means all funded free speech and charity.
 
#393
#393
lawgator1 said:
They weren't auto denied. As far as I know they weren't screened due to name, either.

But the far right literally WANTS to believe at this point that there was political motivation, so that they can try to tag Obama with it, as opposed to just low level incompetence using the names as a proxy for concerns about the fact that such applications had doubled over the period immediately before.

And if that were true, it still seems at odds with the FACT that no Tea Party group had its application denied, whereas we know that a group promoting the Democratic party was, IN FACT, denied.

These FACTS contradict and undermine the theory that the use of the TP name was to go after them out of political motivation. Again, if it were the case, wouldn't you expect some actual denials?
Click to expand...

Read the letters from the IRS, they were denied for all valid reasons. One being that they were using money to beautify personal property under the guise of community beautification! They were also charging for services.

Sorry LG the IRS got that one right! You have picked a piss poor example.
 
#394
#394
lawgator1 said:
Not all Republicans are in the TP, but I'd venture to say that the number of people in the TP who voted for a Democrat for federal office is going to be right around zippity do dah, whereas the number of TP votes for Republicans was in the millions.
Click to expand...

how many in the Congressional Black Caucus voted for Romney?

black must have been a key word right?
 
#395
#395
Vol Main said:
So you just ignore the fact that the Tea Party has a caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives within the Republican Party. If you don't mind my asking, how do you rationalize your integrity with that kind of behavior?
Click to expand...

Questioning his integrity?

There are Tea Party candidates and there are organizations supporting issues important to the TP. They are distinct in the eyes of the tax code.

Just as there is a Black Caucus in Congress and the NAACP is considered to be a tax exempt organization.
 
#400
#400
volinbham said:
Questioning his integrity?

There are Tea Party candidates and there are organizations supporting issues important to the TP. They are distinct in the eyes of the tax code.

Just as there is a Black Caucus in Congress and the NAACP is considered to be a tax exempt organization.
Click to expand...

If a group does not want to be recognized as part of the Tea Party, then why does it call itself the Tea Party? The Tea Party is recognized by the U.S. House of Representatives as a faction of the Republican Party. It has its own caucus within the Republican Party. Do you dispute this? If not, then how many times must I post this fact? Just tell me now so that I can copy and paste the correct number for you. Is three times sufficient, or must I post that fact ten times for you before your sense of integrity assimilates that fact? How many times do you need to see it? My integrity does not allow me to ignore facts, so I really do need an explanation of how other people manage to do that. I do not understand it.

Have you read the tax code sections on tax deductible status for nonprofit corporations?

You surely do know that Blacks are a race, not a political party. The Congressional Black Caucus is officially nonpartisan. I don't recall the GOP banning them. As a matter of fact, a Black man was Chairman of the Republican National Committee a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top