A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal was an intentional effort to harass conservative political groups.
In a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, 56 percent said the IRS use of higher scrutiny on Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status was a deliberate move, with 31 percent calling it an “administrative mistake.”
....
A strong majority, 74 percent, said the IRS moves were inappropriate to 20 percent who said they were appropriate. Fifty-one percent also said they believe those actions were illegal to 44 who said they were inappropriate but not against the law.
No doubt the NTEU's 94% donation rate to Democrats is completely irrelevant to how they would treat conservatives as IRS employees
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Of course it was.
A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal was an intentional effort to harass conservative political groups.
In a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday, 56 percent said the IRS use of higher scrutiny on Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status was a deliberate move, with 31 percent calling it an “administrative mistake.”
....
A strong majority, 74 percent, said the IRS moves were inappropriate to 20 percent who said they were appropriate. Fifty-one percent also said they believe those actions were illegal to 44 who said they were inappropriate but not against the law.
The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.
...
Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.
You know how you tell when someone is telling the truth?
When the offer up 5 iterations of a narrative.
0
The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.
...
Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.
a rock knows this but..... they all do it and continue to do it...they are all crooks thieves liars and only care about protecting their own fools.....
transparency.... LOLOLOLOLOLOL sooooo much government now it is just out of control....
do unto others before they do unto to you attitude
disgusting....will not get better any time soon :-(
how does one stop a run away missile ?????
0
a rock knows this but..... they all do it and continue to do it...they are all crooks thieves liars and only care about protecting their own fools.....
transparency.... LOLOLOLOLOLOL sooooo much government now it is just out of control....
do unto others before they do unto to you attitude
disgusting....will not get better any time soon :-(
“Entrusted with a government credit card, an Internal Revenue Service worker allegedly used the plastic for a years-long Amazon.com shopping spree that netted her hundreds of items, including a chocolate fondue fountain; Bollywood movies; Pampers; Harlequin romance novels; Omaha Steaks; Apple Bottoms skinny jeans; mango body wash; and a Ginsu knife set. Yetunde Oseni, 37, was named this month in a U.S. District Court felony complaint charging her with embezzling government funds. Oseni has worked since 2000 as a secretary in an IRS office in Lanham, Maryland.”
Working for the federal government is tough, isn't it?
0
“Entrusted with a government credit card, an Internal Revenue Service worker allegedly used the plastic for a years-long Amazon.com shopping spree that netted her hundreds of items, including a chocolate fondue fountain; Bollywood movies; Pampers; Harlequin romance novels; Omaha Steaks; Apple Bottoms skinny jeans; mango body wash; and a Ginsu knife set. Yetunde Oseni, 37, was named this month in a U.S. District Court felony complaint charging her with embezzling government funds. Oseni has worked since 2000 as a secretary in an IRS office in Lanham, Maryland.”
I keep hearing "illegal" being used regarding this, yet no person or news organization has mentioned which SPECIFIC federal code was broken.
This is how I interpret the situation.
All organizations are to be scrutinized the same way. If those organizations meet the qualifications and do what they have to do then they should receive tax exempt status.
These organizations can't endorse a specific candidate but they can endorse a philosophy. For example, a liberal organization can endorse Obamacare/Cap and Trade but not Barack Obama for President and a conservative organization can oppose Obamacare/Cap and Trade but cannot endorse Mitt Romney for President.
These Tea Party/Conservative organizations say by not receiving tax exempt status it prevented donors from giving money. If that is true then they were at a disadvantage. The reason is liberal groups were receiving money to put their message out during the election but conservative groups were not.
0
Quote Originally Posted by speak2truth:
I keep hearing "illegal" being used regarding this, yet no person or news organization has mentioned which SPECIFIC federal code was broken.
This is how I interpret the situation.
All organizations are to be scrutinized the same way. If those organizations meet the qualifications and do what they have to do then they should receive tax exempt status.
These organizations can't endorse a specific candidate but they can endorse a philosophy. For example, a liberal organization can endorse Obamacare/Cap and Trade but not Barack Obama for President and a conservative organization can oppose Obamacare/Cap and Trade but cannot endorse Mitt Romney for President.
These Tea Party/Conservative organizations say by not receiving tax exempt status it prevented donors from giving money. If that is true then they were at a disadvantage. The reason is liberal groups were receiving money to put their message out during the election but conservative groups were not.
^All that may be true, bit does not supply the SPECIFIC federal law that was broken.
Fill in the blank: USC Title____ chapter___ section___.
When they find out what actually happened, meaning which specific people did what, they will be able to tell you.
But, to raise a specific example, the IRS released confidential information to the media about 8 groups. That violates disclosure laws. They are principally composed of certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), (especially IRC §§ 6103, 6104, 6105, 6110, 7213, 7213A, and 7431). It also includes the Freedom of Information Act (5 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a).
0
Quote Originally Posted by speak2truth:
^All that may be true, bit does not supply the SPECIFIC federal law that was broken.
Fill in the blank: USC Title____ chapter___ section___.
When they find out what actually happened, meaning which specific people did what, they will be able to tell you.
But, to raise a specific example, the IRS released confidential information to the media about 8 groups. That violates disclosure laws. They are principally composed of certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), (especially IRC §§ 6103, 6104, 6105, 6110, 7213, 7213A, and 7431). It also includes the Freedom of Information Act (5 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a).
IRC § 7213 makes the willful unauthorized disclosure of a return or return information a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Upon conviction, officers or employees of the United States will also be dismissed from office or discharged from employment.
IRC § 7213 makes the willful unauthorized disclosure of a return or return information a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Upon conviction, officers or employees of the United States will also be dismissed from office or discharged from employment.
All organizations are to be scrutinized the same way. If those organizations meet the qualifications and do what they have to do then they should receive tax exempt status.
These organizations can't endorse a specific candidate but they can endorse a philosophy. For example, a liberal organization can endorse Obamacare/Cap and Trade but not Barack Obama for President and a conservative organization can oppose Obamacare/Cap and Trade but cannot endorse Mitt Romney for President.
These Tea Party/Conservative organizations say by not receiving tax exempt status it prevented donors from giving money. If that is true then they were at a disadvantage. The reason is liberal groups were receiving money to put their message out during the election but conservative groups were not.
How many conservitive groups were turned down and why?
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
This is how I interpret the situation.
All organizations are to be scrutinized the same way. If those organizations meet the qualifications and do what they have to do then they should receive tax exempt status.
These organizations can't endorse a specific candidate but they can endorse a philosophy. For example, a liberal organization can endorse Obamacare/Cap and Trade but not Barack Obama for President and a conservative organization can oppose Obamacare/Cap and Trade but cannot endorse Mitt Romney for President.
These Tea Party/Conservative organizations say by not receiving tax exempt status it prevented donors from giving money. If that is true then they were at a disadvantage. The reason is liberal groups were receiving money to put their message out during the election but conservative groups were not.
How many conservitive groups were turned down and why?
It's not they they were turned down, in many cases their applications were held up and still haven't been approved. Instead the IRS was too busy wanting to know what their group members were reading, what was said in their prayers, a list of all their facebook posts etc..
One of the illegal things the IRS did was to provide a progressive group information regarding the conservative group's finances and tax returns. Uhm, that is illegal.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
It's not they they were turned down, in many cases their applications were held up and still haven't been approved. Instead the IRS was too busy wanting to know what their group members were reading, what was said in their prayers, a list of all their facebook posts etc..
One of the illegal things the IRS did was to provide a progressive group information regarding the conservative group's finances and tax returns. Uhm, that is illegal.
All organizations are to be scrutinized the same way.If those organizations meet the qualifications and do what they have to do then they should receive tax exempt status.
These Tea Party/Conservative organizations say by not receiving tax exempt status it prevented donors from giving money. If that is true then they were at a disadvantage.The reason is liberal groups were receiving money to put their message out during the election but conservative groups were not.
Hmmmmmm....Could that have been A FACTOR in the "turnout" for the last General Election
If I didn't know any better but this appears to be right out of Saul's playbook of eliminating/decimating/hindering the "enemy" ahead of the impending battle
ABUSE the power of the IRS to weaken the opposition Good idea until you get caught
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
This is how I interpret the situation.
All organizations are to be scrutinized the same way.If those organizations meet the qualifications and do what they have to do then they should receive tax exempt status.
These Tea Party/Conservative organizations say by not receiving tax exempt status it prevented donors from giving money. If that is true then they were at a disadvantage.The reason is liberal groups were receiving money to put their message out during the election but conservative groups were not.
Hmmmmmm....Could that have been A FACTOR in the "turnout" for the last General Election
If I didn't know any better but this appears to be right out of Saul's playbook of eliminating/decimating/hindering the "enemy" ahead of the impending battle
ABUSE the power of the IRS to weaken the opposition Good idea until you get caught
The best way to eliminate this type of abuse of power by the Executive Branch is to eliminate the IRS with it's over 90,000 employees and an annual budget in excess of $12 billion..
0
The best way to eliminate this type of abuse of power by the Executive Branch is to eliminate the IRS with it's over 90,000 employees and an annual budget in excess of $12 billion..
The best way to eliminate this type of abuse of power by the Executive Branch is to eliminate the IRS with it's over 90,000 employees and an annual budget in excess of $12 billion..
That's out of the question.
We need them to implement Obamacare.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
The best way to eliminate this type of abuse of power by the Executive Branch is to eliminate the IRS with it's over 90,000 employees and an annual budget in excess of $12 billion..
14 the problem with what you post is that the majority of people getting really fired up are people who really, really don't like President Obama. To illustrate my point is that in this same poll they pegged Obama's approval at 50% approve and 47% disapprove. Definitely nothing spectacular. The week before his election the same pollster had him at 51/48%. Basically all of the "scandals" have the effect of hardly moving his approval numbers at all, if any. The ones fired up about it are people like you who didn't vote for him anyway. If it makes you feel better Rasmussen has him at 47/51% but I doubt anyone will ever quote that poll as anything but a joke.
The Obama (and increasingly Democratic) coalition is driven off of minorities, young people, single unmarried women and those with advanced college degrees. I don't see how any of those groups care about the IRS, Benghazi or the AP wiretapping "scandals". However with each passing election these groups are growing as a percentage of the electorate. You are kidding yourself if you think these are winning issues other than to further excite the GOP base. In this 24 news cycle most people just do not care enough about these "scandals" to change their voting patterns.
0
14 the problem with what you post is that the majority of people getting really fired up are people who really, really don't like President Obama. To illustrate my point is that in this same poll they pegged Obama's approval at 50% approve and 47% disapprove. Definitely nothing spectacular. The week before his election the same pollster had him at 51/48%. Basically all of the "scandals" have the effect of hardly moving his approval numbers at all, if any. The ones fired up about it are people like you who didn't vote for him anyway. If it makes you feel better Rasmussen has him at 47/51% but I doubt anyone will ever quote that poll as anything but a joke.
The Obama (and increasingly Democratic) coalition is driven off of minorities, young people, single unmarried women and those with advanced college degrees. I don't see how any of those groups care about the IRS, Benghazi or the AP wiretapping "scandals". However with each passing election these groups are growing as a percentage of the electorate. You are kidding yourself if you think these are winning issues other than to further excite the GOP base. In this 24 news cycle most people just do not care enough about these "scandals" to change their voting patterns.
14 the problem with what you post is that the majority of people getting really fired up are people who really, really don't like President Obama. To illustrate my point is that in this same poll they pegged Obama's approval at 50% approve and 47% disapprove. Definitely nothing spectacular. The week before his election the same pollster had him at 51/48%. Basically all of the "scandals" have the effect of hardly moving his approval numbers at all, if any. The ones fired up about it are people like you who didn't vote for him anyway. If it makes you feel better Rasmussen has him at 47/51% but I doubt anyone will ever quote that poll as anything but a joke.
The Obama (and increasingly Democratic) coalition is driven off of minorities, young people, single unmarried women and those with advanced college degrees. I don't see how any of those groups care about the IRS, Benghazi or the AP wiretapping "scandals". However with each passing election these groups are growing as a percentage of the electorate. You are kidding yourself if you think these are winning issues other than to further excite the GOP base. In this 24 news cycle most people just do not care enough about these "scandals" to change their voting patterns.
this is very well phrased. And I agree with your assessment
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cool_Arrow:
14 the problem with what you post is that the majority of people getting really fired up are people who really, really don't like President Obama. To illustrate my point is that in this same poll they pegged Obama's approval at 50% approve and 47% disapprove. Definitely nothing spectacular. The week before his election the same pollster had him at 51/48%. Basically all of the "scandals" have the effect of hardly moving his approval numbers at all, if any. The ones fired up about it are people like you who didn't vote for him anyway. If it makes you feel better Rasmussen has him at 47/51% but I doubt anyone will ever quote that poll as anything but a joke.
The Obama (and increasingly Democratic) coalition is driven off of minorities, young people, single unmarried women and those with advanced college degrees. I don't see how any of those groups care about the IRS, Benghazi or the AP wiretapping "scandals". However with each passing election these groups are growing as a percentage of the electorate. You are kidding yourself if you think these are winning issues other than to further excite the GOP base. In this 24 news cycle most people just do not care enough about these "scandals" to change their voting patterns.
this is very well phrased. And I agree with your assessment
Children, these scandals have been on going for 100 years. On both sides, always trying to position themselves for the next election. These two allegations, IRS and Benghazi won't fly before 2014 because Obama is too clever for the repulsicans.
Clinton was too but they knew that he couldn't resist Monica, so they planted her on the ropes. Clinton said as much after the scandal was over... that Newt told him she was planted there and all is fair in love and politics.
Obama won't fall for their conniving little tricks.
0
Children, these scandals have been on going for 100 years. On both sides, always trying to position themselves for the next election. These two allegations, IRS and Benghazi won't fly before 2014 because Obama is too clever for the repulsicans.
Clinton was too but they knew that he couldn't resist Monica, so they planted her on the ropes. Clinton said as much after the scandal was over... that Newt told him she was planted there and all is fair in love and politics.
Obama won't fall for their conniving little tricks.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.