Closed Thread
The TP groups never lost a tax exemption. They were new groups applying for one.
IRS targeted conservative groups
X
Favorite Movies
It is not any different because none of them were denied the exemption. It is wrong they were tied up in these endless probes. Most of them did get it, but not in a timely manner but government rarely does anything in a timely matter. Again, the issue is motivation, and those answers have not come yet.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula
X
User Lists
No, actually, systematically targeting political opponents does not cross party lines.
X
User Lists
X
User Lists
More: it appears the IRS leaked tax documents from a conservative advocacy group...directly to an opposition liberal group. During the campaign.
This is really getting messed up.
This is really getting messed up.
X
User Lists
It is not any different because none of them were denied the exemption.
It is wrong they were tied up in these endless probes. Most of them did get it, but not in a timely manner but government rarely does anything in a timely matter.
It's becoming pretty obvious that you're not up on the basic facts of the situation. Which, as always, begs the question of why you're arguing about it.WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
What are you calling systematic?
X
Favorite Movies
The article doesn't show that at all. It has an allegation and the so-called proof without corroboration by another source is thin gruel, like the experts declaring Obama's birth certificate was a fake. It may be so, that another expert who was not hired by the head of a tea party group would make the same conclusion, that the information came directly from an IRS document. But what you have here is at this point far from being messed up, except for your extraordinary sloppiness in drawing conclusions from it.
X
Favorite Movies
It is at this point an offhand accusation.
There isn't anything of substance to back it up. All you have is a targeted tea party member saying he hired an expert who concluded the leaked information came from an IRS document. I would like to hear what another expert not hired by that guy says before I assume it is apparently true. Wouldn't you? I am not stating an impossible standard.
There isn't anything of substance to back it up. All you have is a targeted tea party member saying he hired an expert who concluded the leaked information came from an IRS document. I would like to hear what another expert not hired by that guy says before I assume it is apparently true. Wouldn't you? I am not stating an impossible standard.
X
User Lists
Sure I would. And my use of the word "apparently" is an acknowledgement that we'll have to wait for full confirmation. But people do not testify before Congressional committees lightly, either. It's well worth mentioning, especially in light of the abuse that's already been admitted.
X
Favorite Movies
Huh? In one example, a group HAS its designation and gets the tax benefits from it. In the other, they never get it, and thus never get the benefits. On what planet is that the same?
Funny, because they managed to approve liberal groups in a relatively timely manner:
Wait a minute? As little as nine months applications were approved? That is timely? And nobody is disputing there was a problem in Cinicnatti. That is why this whole notion it was orchestrated at the top seems dubious. Why only in the Cincinatti office? There was no hold on all applications from tea party groups except in that region amd that may have been triggered by the massive amount of applications coming there.
Ongoing and deliberate, both of which have been established. During any administration there will be investigations, and some of those will involve people of differing viewpoints. That isn't what's going on here.
Funny, because they managed to approve liberal groups in a relatively timely manner:
It's becoming pretty obvious that you're not up on the basic facts of the situation. Which, as always, begs the question of why you're arguing about it.WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.
Wait a minute? As little as nine months applications were approved? That is timely? And nobody is disputing there was a problem in Cinicnatti. That is why this whole notion it was orchestrated at the top seems dubious. Why only in the Cincinatti office? There was no hold on all applications from tea party groups except in that region amd that may have been triggered by the massive amount of applications coming there.
Ongoing and deliberate, both of which have been established. During any administration there will be investigations, and some of those will involve people of differing viewpoints. That isn't what's going on here.
X
User Lists
Sure I would. And my use of the word "apparently" is an acknowledgement that we'll have to wait for full confirmation. But people do not testify before Congressional committees lightly, either. It's well worth mentioning, especially in light of the abuse that's already been admitted.
X
User Lists
Wait a minute? As little as nine months applications were approved? That is timely?
Compared to never, yeah, nine months is fast. But the overall speed isn't the issue; the issue is that different ideological groups got different treatment. So this "government is always slow" business is a complete red herring. It doesn't explain, defend, or excuse what happened in the slightest.
And nobody is disputing there was a problem in Cinicnatti. That is why this whole notion it was orchestrated at the top seems dubious. Why only in the Cincinatti office? There was no hold on all applications from tea party groups except in that region amd that may have been triggered by the massive amount of applications coming there.
This is probably the third time you've made a claim that's at odds with the basic facts of the situation. You should probably educate yourself on the topic more before you continue arguing about it.
That has gone on in previous administrations, that criteria. it is not unique to thsi situation in other administrations.
X
Favorite Movies
Yeah, I thought you'd say exactly this, and it's a completely nonsensical response.
Compared to never, yeah, nine months is fast. But the overall speed isn't the issue; the issue is that different ideological groups got different treatment. So this "government is always slow" business is a complete red herring. It doesn't explain, defend, or excuse what happened in the slightest.
What is unfair is they were being flagged for key things like being affiliated with tea party groups. But the applications that were delayed the most had things that were supposedly suspicious. The issue is were liberal groups getting a pass with applications with the same information? It is wrong if different standards are used to scrutinize organizations based on political affiiation. But the applications being held up the most, if there were legitimately suspicous things in it is not in itself wrong. Once you get red flagged for that, then an application that even under the best of circumstances will take at least nine months will take a lot, lot longer.
Nope. That was the line they sold at first, when everyone thought the targeting began in 2012. But then we found out it started in 2010, which actually saw fewer applications than the year before. And IRS officials have already told Congress that the targeting was directed by "officials in Washington."
Stop linking to WSJ because i am not subscribed there and the articles don't show up for me. I will try to find another source for this story later.
I found it. And it sure wasn't easy because most of the other sources were just referencing the WSJ headline without the story. The question remains, why was the focus in Cincinatti if it was being directed in Washington? Why was it only going on in that region? it will be interesting to see where this is going, but you keep drawing conclusions when we still don't know much. These IRS agents may be telling the truth or they may be doing what Lerner may be doing if she is involved, putting the blame on someone else.
This is probably the third time you've made a claim that's at odds with the basic facts of the situation. You should probably educate yourself on the topic more before you continue arguing about it.
No, because I was not making claims that are at odds with the basic facts. That is your specialty. What you linked (if I coud read it, presuming I have the same basic story) is agents contradicting the Washingtom IRS claim it was rogue agents. We still don't know who is telling it right. And we still don't know why it was only coming from Cincinatti.
Based on what? You've provided no evidence to this effect. In fact, the one thing you tried to argue was comparable (which, again, didn't even result in anyone's exemption being denied) wasn't even for the same tax designation. I didn't notice at first, but the church in the article is a 501(c)(3), not a 501(c)(4). The former has a stricter qualifying standards. There's basically no meaningful angle, then, from which it's comparable.
Compared to never, yeah, nine months is fast. But the overall speed isn't the issue; the issue is that different ideological groups got different treatment. So this "government is always slow" business is a complete red herring. It doesn't explain, defend, or excuse what happened in the slightest.
What is unfair is they were being flagged for key things like being affiliated with tea party groups. But the applications that were delayed the most had things that were supposedly suspicious. The issue is were liberal groups getting a pass with applications with the same information? It is wrong if different standards are used to scrutinize organizations based on political affiiation. But the applications being held up the most, if there were legitimately suspicous things in it is not in itself wrong. Once you get red flagged for that, then an application that even under the best of circumstances will take at least nine months will take a lot, lot longer.
Nope. That was the line they sold at first, when everyone thought the targeting began in 2012. But then we found out it started in 2010, which actually saw fewer applications than the year before. And IRS officials have already told Congress that the targeting was directed by "officials in Washington."
Stop linking to WSJ because i am not subscribed there and the articles don't show up for me. I will try to find another source for this story later.
I found it. And it sure wasn't easy because most of the other sources were just referencing the WSJ headline without the story. The question remains, why was the focus in Cincinatti if it was being directed in Washington? Why was it only going on in that region? it will be interesting to see where this is going, but you keep drawing conclusions when we still don't know much. These IRS agents may be telling the truth or they may be doing what Lerner may be doing if she is involved, putting the blame on someone else.
This is probably the third time you've made a claim that's at odds with the basic facts of the situation. You should probably educate yourself on the topic more before you continue arguing about it.
No, because I was not making claims that are at odds with the basic facts. That is your specialty. What you linked (if I coud read it, presuming I have the same basic story) is agents contradicting the Washingtom IRS claim it was rogue agents. We still don't know who is telling it right. And we still don't know why it was only coming from Cincinatti.
Based on what? You've provided no evidence to this effect. In fact, the one thing you tried to argue was comparable (which, again, didn't even result in anyone's exemption being denied) wasn't even for the same tax designation. I didn't notice at first, but the church in the article is a 501(c)(3), not a 501(c)(4). The former has a stricter qualifying standards. There's basically no meaningful angle, then, from which it's comparable.
Last edited by will.15; 06-07-13 at 01:46 AM.
X
User Lists
It turns out that WSJ story, if what I read was sourced from them, may not even be accurate. Other news sources what appears to be the same story reports two IRS agents suspect the targeting was being directed from Washington, but were not told that and have no direct knowledge it did. Congressional investigators using this information are trying to confirm it by tracing email. Maybe they will confirm it, maybe they won't. But once again you were jumping to a conclusion that has far from been proven to be a fact.
X
User Lists
What is unfair is they were being flagged for key things like being affiliated with tea party groups. But the applications that were delayed the most had things that were supposedly suspicious.
The issue is were liberal groups getting a pass with applications with the same information? It is wrong if different standards are used to scrutinize organizations based on political affiiation. But the applications being held up the most, if there were legitimately suspicous things in it is not in itself wrong. Once you get red flagged for that, then an application that even under the best of circumstances will take at least nine months will take a lot, lot longer.
The question remains, why was the focus in Cincinatti if it was being directed in Washington? Why was it only going on in that region? it will be interesting to see where this is going, but you keep drawing conclusions when we still don't know much. These IRS agents may be telling the truth or they may be doing what Lerner may be doing if she is involved, putting the blame on someone else.
No, because I was not making claims that are at odds with the basic facts. That is your specialty. What you linked (if I coud read it, presuming I have the same basic story) is agents contradicting the Washingtom IRS claim it was rogue agents. We still don't know who is telling it right. And we still don't know why it was only coming from Cincinatti.
You never heard of Richard Nixon and his use of the IRS?
X
Favorite Movies
It turns out that WSJ story, if what I read was sourced from them, may not even be accurate. Other news sources what appears to be the same story reports two IRS agents suspect the targeting was being directed from Washington, but were not told that and have no direct knowledge it did. Congressional investigators using this information are trying to confirm it by tracing email. Maybe they will confirm it, maybe they won't. But once again you were jumping to a conclusion that has far from been proven to be a fact.
Two Internal Revenue Service employees in the agency's Cincinnati office told congressional investigators that IRS officials in Washington helped direct the probe of tea-party groups that began in 2010.
If you want to suggest it's wrong, you should provide that source. I'm positive I've said this before, but apparently it has to be said again: there's no reason not to provide the source upfront when you want to make a claim like this. They should only be excluded if you're making reference to something well established which you expect nobody will question.
X
Favorite Movies
You want me to cite other legit news sources reporting the same story with far more ambiguous language what they said? They include some of the same quotes from the agents, except it includes they supect and had no direct knowledge it was coming from Washington. That makes a big difference. And are you forgetting the WSJ was bought up by Rupert Murdoch and so we can no longer assume their news reporting is as reliable as it was before the takeover?
X
User Lists
Yes, I want you to cite other sources any time you dispute the factual content of something. There's zero reason not to.
That said, I think I can already guess what the issue is: the WSJ article says that the IRS agents heard from their superior that someone in Washington was directing things. If that's the only issue, then I think the use of the word "suspect" is fairly ridiculous, because it implies speculation where it appears none is involved. This isn't something they pieced together from circumstantial evidence: it's something they say they were explicitly told.
That said, I think I can already guess what the issue is: the WSJ article says that the IRS agents heard from their superior that someone in Washington was directing things. If that's the only issue, then I think the use of the word "suspect" is fairly ridiculous, because it implies speculation where it appears none is involved. This isn't something they pieced together from circumstantial evidence: it's something they say they were explicitly told.
X
Favorite Movies
No, that is not what the articles said. The other reports do not say they heard from their superiors. It says two agents with only one being quoted suspected Washington inivolvement because iof the scrutiny their work was receiving, which is not the same thing. And you are the one that chose to cite what turns out to be a rogue version of the story. What I eventully found that apparently was citing the WSJ version was from some right wing source that had jolly commentary in black every paragraph or two about the evil Obama administration. They needed the WSJ version to do that slant. You know something? Since you now know your version is not accurate and was not the version published widely by the media, why should i provide a direct link to it? You can find it. And it is quite hilarious you are taking this cocky attitude about providing a link when I never received a proper link from you for your source because the WSJ limits its website to people who either subscribe to the paper or subscribe directly to the site. But I will quote this excerpt from ABC:
Congressional investigators are starting to see cracks in the Internal Revenue Service argument that a small group of agents in the Cincinnati office solely targeted conservative political groups.
Investigators, who are still in the early stages of their probe, have not uncovered any direct evidence that senior officials in Washington ordered the agents to target tea party groups, or why they may have done so.
But two agents in the IRS's Cincinnati office say they believe their work was being closely monitored by higher-ups in Washington. One agent, Elizabeth Hofacre, complained to investigators that she was being micromanaged by Washington when she processed applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups, according to a transcript of her interview with investigators.
Her interview suggests a long trail of emails that could support her claim.
The other versions od the story are in this vein. The one I first read explicitly said they suspected. None of the three three i read ever said they were told by their superiors the marching orders came from Washington.
Congressional investigators are starting to see cracks in the Internal Revenue Service argument that a small group of agents in the Cincinnati office solely targeted conservative political groups.
Investigators, who are still in the early stages of their probe, have not uncovered any direct evidence that senior officials in Washington ordered the agents to target tea party groups, or why they may have done so.
But two agents in the IRS's Cincinnati office say they believe their work was being closely monitored by higher-ups in Washington. One agent, Elizabeth Hofacre, complained to investigators that she was being micromanaged by Washington when she processed applications for tax-exempt status by tea party groups, according to a transcript of her interview with investigators.
Her interview suggests a long trail of emails that could support her claim.
The other versions od the story are in this vein. The one I first read explicitly said they suspected. None of the three three i read ever said they were told by their superiors the marching orders came from Washington.
X
User Lists
If you want the text of the WSJ story, you can plug the article's title into Google News--they usually show the full text when referred by a search engine. Not that this has anything to do with your bizarre refusal to source your claims, for which there is simply no reasonable explanation.
That said, the quote from ABC doesn't appear to contradict anything in the WSJ report. It says they "believe" their work was being monitored, but that's a different claim from saying it was "directed," which the WSJ report says they were told by their superiors. And what is your accusation, anyway? That this is just made up? What part of "our superiors told us this" is supposed to be slant, exactly? Either they testified that, or not. If they did, it's not slant. If they didn't, it's a straight up fabrication. Is that what you're claiming?
That said, the quote from ABC doesn't appear to contradict anything in the WSJ report. It says they "believe" their work was being monitored, but that's a different claim from saying it was "directed," which the WSJ report says they were told by their superiors. And what is your accusation, anyway? That this is just made up? What part of "our superiors told us this" is supposed to be slant, exactly? Either they testified that, or not. If they did, it's not slant. If they didn't, it's a straight up fabrication. Is that what you're claiming?
X