IRS 'scandal'

[rizon72]

It is a bit surprising that one of the most powerful government agencies can make a list of 'catch' words or phrases to go after groups and people don't care.

 

I think this could come back and seriously hurt the democrats, because their party line is 'it happened to both sides'. Sorry, but I want answers, not the party line, and pleading the 5th. I want to know who made up that 'list', did it come from some internal department of the IRS? The WH? Congress? The people deserve to know that truth. I want to know why words like 'patriot' were on that list. Is that word something terrorists are using regularly in our country to gain tax-exempt status?

 

I guess to me what the organization is doing is more important than if they have some word like 'TEA Party' or 'occupy' in their name. I do have a bit of a problem with the idea that progressive groups were targeted as much as conservative groups. If that had been the case, it would have been mentioned very loudly by people, like those on MSNBC, and even the NY Times and such.

 

Remember, if you're fine with what happened, reverse the situation. Say a Republican is in the WH, and instead of conservative put liberal and conservative instead of liberal, are you still fine with it, or are you being political? I'm not fine with it, doesn't matter who is in charge. This is an abuse of power by someone in our government, and we, the people, deserve to know and reassured it won't happen again.

[colourwheel]

There really isn't a scandal here. Darrell Issa Just kept pushing to find something where as it could be linked to the white house. In his mind it seemed "guilty until proven innocent". The problem about the investigation is Darrell Issa took things too personal making outrageous accusations about some how The white house was involved when there was no evidence what so ever.

 

Do I think it's unfair that the IRS does target specific group? yes! But that is what the IRS does, it collects taxes. Maybe the IRS should target groups at random like they do when they audit people.

 

In my mind it seems that when anything is being handled "poorly" when a democrat holds the white house it's always a "scandal" to the republicans. Benghazi is another perfect example of how conservatives always think something has to be a "scandal" just because the situation was handled poorly. I mean lets be real here.. Was the 911 Attacks a "scandal" when Bush was in office? After all 911 was far greater of a mess and handled beyond poorly in the history of any presidential administration.

Edited July 6, 2013 by colourwheel

[bben46]

Actually the IRS doesn't just use random selection to audit your personal tax returns or business returns - they use a list of target words, a list of target professions and then a few random ones thrown in. And if you have ever been audited and they found problems, you are far more likely to be audited again.

 

IMHO, the whole IRS 'scandal' is a red herring to get the public to not notice some other political BS. :rolleyes:

[colourwheel]

 

Actually the IRS doesn't just use random selection to audit your personal tax returns or business returns - they use a list of target words, a list of target professions and then a few random ones thrown in. And if you have ever been audited and they found problems, you are far more likely to be audited again.

 

Honestly, I thought the IRS does audit people at random. So why is it now a "scandal" when certain groups are being targeted? who knows... But this just reinforces the fact that there is no scandal. The IRS is just run poorly.....

Edited July 6, 2013 by colourwheel

[sukeban]

I agree that there isn't really a scandal here, at least not in the way that folks like Issa et al want there to be.

 

Obviously, nobody wants any government agency taking political views into account when it comes to their enforcement of rules and regulations, but at the same time the IRS does have a responsibility to investigate nonprofit groups and ensure that they are not violating any laws related to their nonprofit status. Specifically, these groups claiming nonprofit status under the 501c(4) exemption have to prove that they are primarily (over 50% of funds expended) engaged in "social welfare" activities rather than political activism/advocacy, a test that I am not sure many of these Tea Party groups actually meet. However, I believe that this is probably equally true of many liberal nonprofit groups as well.

 

To me, the primary scandal here involves the porousness of our tax code and how political groups are able to claim nonprofit protections when they are flagrantly involved in electioneering activities. I would like to see the IRS hulk smash all of these fake nonprofits and restore tax-exempt status to what it was always intended to be--a means to encourage philanthropy and to promote nonpartisan civic activities (like garden clubs and after-school English programs).

 

Anyway, my conclusions:

 

A) Darrel Issa is a bad joke (a political Don Quixote)

B) Sadly, our tax code and election laws are even worse

Edited July 6, 2013 by sukeban

[TRoaches]

Was the 911 Attacks a "scandal" when Bush was in office?

 

Yes.

 

Regarding the IRS, its very existence is a scandal.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjQodPBfSUg

Edited July 6, 2013 by TRoaches

[colourwheel]

 

Was the 911 Attacks a "scandal" when Bush was in office?

 

Yes.

 

The difference is after the 911 Attacks during the bush administration the Democrats were not persecuting the republicans for months on end crying, screaming, and calling it a "scandal". They just accepted it as a poorly handled situation, the worst Incident in history of any presidential administration.

 

Conservatives keep shouting "We need answer on Benghazi attacks because 3 Americans died! It's a white house scandal!" as if they blame Obama himself for the actual incident. Liberals were not going around for months on end screaming "We need answers on the world trade center attacks because 1762 residents of New York, 1402 people in Tower one, 674 residents of New Jersey, 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., 614 people in Tower two, 355 employees of Marsh Inc., 343 firefighters, 175 employees of Aon Corporation, 37 Port Authority police officers, 23 police officers, 2 paramedics, and 1 firefighter was killed by a man who jumped off the top floors.... all died! It's a white house scandal!"

 

The whole IRS thing is no more of a "scandal" than anything else that is handled poorly during an administration.

Edited July 6, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

I don't really like the word "scandal" at all, and I cringe when "-gate" is appended to anything and everything. The IRS issue is an example of corruption, the media's coverage of it is a case study in dishonest journalism from both sides, and in the end nothing will come of it other than perhaps a few fall people losing their jobs or being prosecuted.

 

Your comparison to 9/11 is silly though. An act of war is incomparable to a misuse of executive power, and your attempt to draw a comparison between the two is invalid and borders on offensive. Comparing something to 9/11 is like comparing someone to Hitler, and it makes the person who is making the comparison sound desperate because it is an obvious appeal to emotion rather than logic or law.

[Lisnpuppy]

TRoaches...I don't really think your video is a good response to the topic at hand. And for this guy to dismiss in one fell swoop all these folks like he does...well...

 

((Also and I am going to say this in my yellow pen and I hope you know the difference...Your line "Comparing something to 9/11 is like comparing someone to Hitler, and it makes the person who is making the comparison sound desperate because it is an obvious appeal to emotion rather than logic or law." is coming dangerously close to getting personal. I am sure that wasn't your intent but it really could have been phrased in a much better way. I really have no desire for this debate topic to go to you and Colour slinging it at each other at the determent to anyone else trying to post or engage in this topic)).

 

Now here is the bigger issue. It has been show the IRS didn't target only "conservative groups" as certain parties have tried to say. (See

 

However there is a huge issue with ALL these kinds of groups. They list themselves as eligible for this tax exemption and say that none of their money goes toward political activities, then turn right around and use there money for political activities. We will never know for sure as by law the IRS can not release all the information on tall the groups that applied so we won't know who it actually targeted in this (and who was targeted the most.)

 

An example of some of the things some of the conservative groups do...(please know there can be found an equal amount of liberal groups that pull this, this article was just at hand to show the point I am making)

 

"Some of the conservative groups identified by the Times told the IRS they did not engage in electoral politics when in fact they did. The Wetumpka, Ala., Tea Party group told the Times that its participation in Code Red USA, a national voter turnout drive intended to engineer “the defeat of President Barack Obama,” was for “educational purposes.” The head of the Ohio Liberty Coalition claimed distributing literature for Mitt Romney was “not political activity.” He told the Times his lawyers said the IRS was concerned about television and radio advertising. " (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/28/what_the_irs_did_right/)

 

Again...we should be far more worried about all these tax exempt groups sneaking through (on both sides) that say they aren't giving money to political actions when they clearly do. There is no reporting of this money as is supposed to happen in political campaigns. There is no oversight.

 

The problem is how can the IRS have proper oversight of this matter when issuing these tax exempt status? So I think that this was blow out of proportion in the way it was presented. It was used by the conservatives to distract from real issues, just as it would have been if the opposite had happened. The President doesn't make the laws on control the IRS. He can appoint (with congress approval) and fire (at will) the commissioner oversight committee chair. It is part of the Department of Treasury and I doubt the President is briefed on the management of the IRS on any regular basis.

 

The problem is you don't hear about all of this most of the time. People are bad about sifting through information to make their own conclusions or finding out more details. They hear the headline and that is what they believe and they move on. When later facts are presented they don't typically go back to find out more information.

[HeyYou]

 

It is a bit surprising that one of the most powerful government agencies can make a list of 'catch' words or phrases to go after groups and people don't care.

 

No more surprising than some of the most powerful intelligence agencies of our government spying on it's own people.....