As I posted, at least 3 liberal groups were also investigated and 1 was turned down for tax exempt status
Zero liberal groups were targeted for being liberal.
The only reason you are posting such information is to deflect from the fact that conservative groups were targeted because they are conservative.
Responding by saying "3 liberal groups" doesn't make any sense because they weren't singled out for their political beliefs.
I'd also add that: from the OIG report on the IRS:
For the 296 total political campaign interventionapplications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied
To demonstrate that what you're doing is trying to compare apples to oranges.
0
As I posted, at least 3 liberal groups were also investigated and 1 was turned down for tax exempt status
Zero liberal groups were targeted for being liberal.
The only reason you are posting such information is to deflect from the fact that conservative groups were targeted because they are conservative.
Responding by saying "3 liberal groups" doesn't make any sense because they weren't singled out for their political beliefs.
I'd also add that: from the OIG report on the IRS:
For the 296 total political campaign interventionapplications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied
To demonstrate that what you're doing is trying to compare apples to oranges.
As I posted, at least 3 liberal groups were also investigated and 1 was turned down for tax exempt status. No conservative groups were denied tax exempt status. Rather than laugh at it prove it wrong.Just another of your bs threads and posts that you are known for. When someone slaps you with the truth you deflect with one of your shi t posts.Just for once try to debate somene rather than deflect.
Oh and to the "no conservative groups were denied" point, multiple conservative groups gave up after these illegal delays.
For example:
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
As I posted, at least 3 liberal groups were also investigated and 1 was turned down for tax exempt status. No conservative groups were denied tax exempt status. Rather than laugh at it prove it wrong.Just another of your bs threads and posts that you are known for. When someone slaps you with the truth you deflect with one of your shi t posts.Just for once try to debate somene rather than deflect.
Oh and to the "no conservative groups were denied" point, multiple conservative groups gave up after these illegal delays.
For example:
IRS officials refused to grant tax exempt status to two pro-life organizations because of their position on the abortion issue, according to a non-profit law firm, which said that one group was pressured not to protest a pro-choice organization that endorsed President Obama during the last election.
“In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent ‘Ms. Richards’ told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood,” the Thomas More Society announced today. “Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved.”
Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harrassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.
More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency’s Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS’ regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.
Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harrassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.
More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency’s Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS’ regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.
There is little difference between Obama and Nixon at this point:
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year
that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And
did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more
importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire
year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's
going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are
briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the
commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not
reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this
fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The
terrain would have looked very different."
Yes, the Obama Administration covered this up to try and win an election.
0
There is little difference between Obama and Nixon at this point:
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was auditing the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year
that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And
did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more
importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire
year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's
going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are
briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the
commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not
reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this
fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The
terrain would have looked very different."
Yes, the Obama Administration covered this up to try and win an election.
the report concluded, based on a statistical sample, that all cases with "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12" in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.
Yes, the Obama IRS delayed Tea Party group applications to limit their political activities and covered it up to win an election.
0
And remember:
the report concluded, based on a statistical sample, that all cases with "Tea Party," "Patriots," or "9/12" in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists.
As I posted, at least 3 liberal groups were also investigated and 1 was turned down for tax exempt status
Zero liberal groups were targeted for being liberal.
The only reason you are posting such information is to deflect from the fact that conservative groups were targeted because they are conservative.
Responding by saying "3 liberal groups" doesn't make any sense because they weren't singled out for their political beliefs.
I'd also add that: from the OIG report on the IRS:
For the 296 total political campaign interventionapplications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied
To demonstrate that what you're doing is trying to compare apples to oranges.
Where did I say that 3 liberal groups were targeted? I posted that at least 3 liberal groups were investigated and 1 was denied. Prove it wrong, don't deflect with your bs posts, prove what I posted was wrong.Pretty simple, no?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
As I posted, at least 3 liberal groups were also investigated and 1 was turned down for tax exempt status
Zero liberal groups were targeted for being liberal.
The only reason you are posting such information is to deflect from the fact that conservative groups were targeted because they are conservative.
Responding by saying "3 liberal groups" doesn't make any sense because they weren't singled out for their political beliefs.
I'd also add that: from the OIG report on the IRS:
For the 296 total political campaign interventionapplications TIGTA reviewed as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied
To demonstrate that what you're doing is trying to compare apples to oranges.
Where did I say that 3 liberal groups were targeted? I posted that at least 3 liberal groups were investigated and 1 was denied. Prove it wrong, don't deflect with your bs posts, prove what I posted was wrong.Pretty simple, no?
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
0
Hey guys
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
please refrain from interjecting facts and real life experience into a thread started by 14daroad. thank you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by alangrrbs:
Hey guys
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
please refrain from interjecting facts and real life experience into a thread started by 14daroad. thank you.
A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too
~ Peggy Noonan
0
A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too
In his testimony today before the House Ways and Means Committee ...ousted IRS chief Steven Miller admitted that progressive groups were not targeted....
0
In his testimony today before the House Ways and Means Committee ...ousted IRS chief Steven Miller admitted that progressive groups were not targeted....
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
Add in a few requests from top Democrats in Congress to "look into" these conservative groups. Yeah, I bet that had no influence on the robots at the IRS, especially the ones looking for a nice little promotion. Laughable.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by alangrrbs:
Hey guys
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
Add in a few requests from top Democrats in Congress to "look into" these conservative groups. Yeah, I bet that had no influence on the robots at the IRS, especially the ones looking for a nice little promotion. Laughable.
Add in a few requests from top Democrats in Congress to "look into" these conservative groups. Yeah, I bet that had no influence on the robots at the IRS, especially the ones looking for a nice little promotion. Laughable.
Here are the requirements for retaining tax-exempt non-profit status as a 501 (c) (3) taken from Title 26: Internal Revenue Code, Part 1, Income taxes… (3) Authorization of legislative or political activities. An organization is not organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if its articles expressly empower it: (i) To devote more than an insubstantial part of its activities to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise; or (ii) Directly or indirectly to participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
The easy conclusion is that the groups under scrutiny simply don’t meet those requirements.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Danrules24:
Add in a few requests from top Democrats in Congress to "look into" these conservative groups. Yeah, I bet that had no influence on the robots at the IRS, especially the ones looking for a nice little promotion. Laughable.
Here are the requirements for retaining tax-exempt non-profit status as a 501 (c) (3) taken from Title 26: Internal Revenue Code, Part 1, Income taxes… (3) Authorization of legislative or political activities. An organization is not organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes if its articles expressly empower it: (i) To devote more than an insubstantial part of its activities to attempting to influence legislation by propaganda or otherwise; or (ii) Directly or indirectly to participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
The easy conclusion is that the groups under scrutiny simply don’t meet those requirements.
please refrain from interjecting facts and real life experience into a thread started by 14daroad. thank you.
Sorry bout that.
It seems most people have already made up their mind one way or the other.
Danrules-the only groups the IRS targets is the groups that owe money. Obviously, there is the rogue case here or there, but it's not something that is practiced. People in the IRS work there for many years through many different political powers. I would also ask for proof for your statement, or if it is just a thought you have. I posted because I have knowledge from someone who worked there for 37 years. If you have evidence or something concrete, please share. I'm always interested in more facts and info.
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
please refrain from interjecting facts and real life experience into a thread started by 14daroad. thank you.
Sorry bout that.
It seems most people have already made up their mind one way or the other.
Danrules-the only groups the IRS targets is the groups that owe money. Obviously, there is the rogue case here or there, but it's not something that is practiced. People in the IRS work there for many years through many different political powers. I would also ask for proof for your statement, or if it is just a thought you have. I posted because I have knowledge from someone who worked there for 37 years. If you have evidence or something concrete, please share. I'm always interested in more facts and info.
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
It seems most people have already made up their mind one way or the other.
Danrules-the only groups the IRS targets is the groups that owe money. Obviously, there is the rogue case here or there, but it's not something that is practiced. People in the IRS work there for many years through many different political powers. I would also ask for proof for your statement, or if it is just a thought you have. I posted because I have knowledge from someone who worked there for 37 years. If you have evidence or something concrete, please share. I'm always interested in more facts and info.
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
The only group the IRS targets is the groups that owe money? I call BS.
Here you go...proof that powerful Dems asked the IRS to look specifically at conservative groups.
It seems most people have already made up their mind one way or the other.
Danrules-the only groups the IRS targets is the groups that owe money. Obviously, there is the rogue case here or there, but it's not something that is practiced. People in the IRS work there for many years through many different political powers. I would also ask for proof for your statement, or if it is just a thought you have. I posted because I have knowledge from someone who worked there for 37 years. If you have evidence or something concrete, please share. I'm always interested in more facts and info.
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
The only group the IRS targets is the groups that owe money? I call BS.
Here you go...proof that powerful Dems asked the IRS to look specifically at conservative groups.
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
what the f*ck? Seriosuly? Soif you question a goverment agency one can expect to be targeted, audited, discriminated against?
What country is this again?
0
Quote Originally Posted by alangrrbs:
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
what the f*ck? Seriosuly? Soif you question a goverment agency one can expect to be targeted, audited, discriminated against?
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
The IRS Commissioner is a political appointee.
the "few people at the top" appear to magically be Democrats, donate to Democrats, and targeted conservatives.
You putting scandal in quotes demonstrates that you have a bias on this matter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by alangrrbs:
Hey guys
Thought I'd chime in here. My Dad actually worked for the IRS for 37 year. Retired 2 years ago. It was his only job out of college. Now he does independent accounting for several companies.
The IRS has nothing to do with political parties. They actually don't take orders from the President. They operate on their own, and stay pretty clear away from the political party scene. They are more interested in numbers than political views.
This "scandal" as it is called is just a few people at the top that let their own personal feelings get in the way of their job that requires no emotions, and only black and white numbers.
Hope this helps add a little information.
The IRS Commissioner is a political appointee.
the "few people at the top" appear to magically be Democrats, donate to Democrats, and targeted conservatives.
You putting scandal in quotes demonstrates that you have a bias on this matter.
Where did I say that 3 liberal groups were targeted? I posted that at least 3 liberal groups were investigated and 1 was denied. Prove it wrong, don't deflect with your bs posts, prove what I posted was wrong.Pretty simple, no?
I am not looking to "prove it wrong" - I never disputed it.
What I said was you're only posting it as a deflection.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what happend here.
Which again, is why you're posting it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:
Where did I say that 3 liberal groups were targeted? I posted that at least 3 liberal groups were investigated and 1 was denied. Prove it wrong, don't deflect with your bs posts, prove what I posted was wrong.Pretty simple, no?
I am not looking to "prove it wrong" - I never disputed it.
What I said was you're only posting it as a deflection.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what happend here.
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
So in other words, you don't think it is "right" you're just saying we should have expected that this would happen.
That is pretty obnoxious, and un-American.
0
Quote Originally Posted by alangrrbs:
On a side note, I will add an opinion here. I will start by saying that what the IRS guys did was bad. However, if you're in a group that wants to get rid of the IRS, and has been outspoken about not liking the IRS (like lots of tea party groups have said) it might be expected that the IRS might target you. If you poke a sleeping bear, and get mauled...most people might say, "Why did you poke the bear?" Not saying what the IRS did was right...but it can't come as that big of surprise.
So in other words, you don't think it is "right" you're just saying we should have expected that this would happen.
People in the IRS work there for many years through many different political powers. I would also ask for proof for your statement, or if it is just a thought you have. I posted because I have knowledge from someone who worked there for 37 years. If you have evidence or something concrete, please share. I'm always interested in more facts and info.
Do you mean facts and info like this?
The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
The IRS is many things, but "independent" isn't one of them. It is formally part of the Treasury Department and is headed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is appointed by the President. The Commissioner is accountable to the President reporting through the Treasury Secretary.
Facts.
Info.
0
Quote Originally Posted by alangrrbs:
People in the IRS work there for many years through many different political powers. I would also ask for proof for your statement, or if it is just a thought you have. I posted because I have knowledge from someone who worked there for 37 years. If you have evidence or something concrete, please share. I'm always interested in more facts and info.
Do you mean facts and info like this?
The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
The IRS is many things, but "independent" isn't one of them. It is formally part of the Treasury Department and is headed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is appointed by the President. The Commissioner is accountable to the President reporting through the Treasury Secretary.
please refrain from interjecting facts and real life experience into a thread started by 14daroad. thank you.
Right on cue:
The Internal Revenue Service is not exactly an “independent agency,” as President Obama claimed during a May 13 press conference. In fact, it is a bureau of the Treasury Department, an executive agency within the federal government. And it is the president who nominates the head or chief executive of the IRS, and who has the authority to remove the individual in that post at his or her will.
please refrain from interjecting facts and real life experience into a thread started by 14daroad. thank you.
Right on cue:
The Internal Revenue Service is not exactly an “independent agency,” as President Obama claimed during a May 13 press conference. In fact, it is a bureau of the Treasury Department, an executive agency within the federal government. And it is the president who nominates the head or chief executive of the IRS, and who has the authority to remove the individual in that post at his or her will.
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.
Hot Forum Topics
