Aren't the fundamental bases of the Tea Party anti-taxes, anti-government, obstruction, nullification of federal laws, etc.? Correct me if I'm wrong, but who wouldn't be investigating every move of these organizations?
Aren't the fundamental bases of the Tea Party anti-taxes, anti-government, obstruction, nullification of federal laws, etc.? Correct me if I'm wrong, but who wouldn't be investigating every move of these organizations?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
doper wrote:which part of "disproportionately" do you not comprehend? if only conservative groups were applying for 501(c)(4) status, then, yes, it would not be a big deal to give them a better look. however, there were plenty of left of center groups who also applied for 501(c)(4) status in this time period and they were given a free pass. the fact that you either cannot or do not want to recognize this is mind-boggling.
i did find it amusing that you seem to believe that being a career IRS employee somehow prevents one from being senior. senior is senior and it's irrelevant how the person got there. i also didn't reference any reports so nice try there too.
i do think that the IRS should be scrutinizing ALL non-profits because so many of them don't meet tax-exempt standards. however, reading blatantly biased malarkey on here, like what you seem to enjoy writing, isn't going to make that happen.
The reason why in 2008-2010 Conservative groups were being looked at more was because at the time way more conservative groups were applying for tax exempt status. This was the time of the rise of the tea party after all.
So the IRS looked for key words in the application like tea party because it was obvious that a large number of the groups did not deserve tax-exempt status and were doing it just for political purposes. For example Karl Rove pushed for this tactic among conservative groups.
However, once a senior official realized what was going on and how it could be looked at in a wrong way THEY CHANGED HOW THE KEY WORDS WERE LOOKED FOR IN THE COMPUTER DATA BASE. This was before any controversy was brought forward by the Republicans and faux news. In other words they fixed their own issue. Once the senior official in the IRS saw how things could be seen as bad they changed the search data to include democrat leaning groups also.
The whole point behind adding these key words to the search data base was to make it quicker to look for obvious political groups that needed to be looked at closer in this time period. AT THIS TIME THE TEA PARTY WAS THE BIG GROUP APPLYING FOR THESE EXEMPTIONS. In this time period very few democrat leaning groups were applying for tax exempt status but very large numbers of conservative groups were because they had lost the recent election.
This is a common practice in the IRS. They did not purposely target conservative groups. THE GUY WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE IRS AT THE TIME WAS APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH.
Once again this is a made up controversy from the republicans and faux news.
your post is more left wing nonsense.
"way more conservative groups were applying for tax exempt status." anyone who uses the term "way more" shouldn't be taken very seriously. i have not seen one source that has said that significantly more groups were right wingers than left wingers. the word that continues to be used is DISPROPORTIONATE, which necessarily implies that, even if more right winger groups applied, they nonetheless were examined in relatively greater numbers than their lefty counterparts. the IRS has NOT claimed this to be the case and you simply are making that fact up.
"obvious that a large number of the groups did not deserve tax-exempt status."
this is another fact that you pulled out of the thin air. obvious to whom? do you mean the IRS before it even looked at their books? right. moreover, the IRS has not claimed that its policy rooted out many right wing fraudulent groups, which maybe would somewhat justify the policy.
"very few democrat leaning groups were applying for tax exempt status but very large numbers of conservative groups were because they had lost the recent election."
another made up fact. so leading up to the 2012 election, almost no lefty groups were formed? that's pure fiction but thanks for trying to peddle it as fact.
also, i like how you guys think that just because W appointed the head of the IRS, then nothing bad could happen under his watch regarding conservative groups. who nominated chief justice roberts? you know, the one who cast the deciding vote in favor of obamacare. who originally appointed the bernanke? you know, the one who is obama's chief henchman with his QE^infinity to keep the stock market up. it's unclear whether this policy even made its way up to the head of the IRS but to summarily dismiss that person from having any culpability due to the fact that W appointed him shows how truly naive you are.
doper wrote:
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:The reason why in 2008-2010 Conservative groups were being looked at more was because at the time way more conservative groups were applying for tax exempt status. This was the time of the rise of the tea party after all.
So the IRS looked for key words in the application like tea party because it was obvious that a large number of the groups did not deserve tax-exempt status and were doing it just for political purposes. For example Karl Rove pushed for this tactic among conservative groups.
However, once a senior official realized what was going on and how it could be looked at in a wrong way THEY CHANGED HOW THE KEY WORDS WERE LOOKED FOR IN THE COMPUTER DATA BASE. This was before any controversy was brought forward by the Republicans and faux news. In other words they fixed their own issue. Once the senior official in the IRS saw how things could be seen as bad they changed the search data to include democrat leaning groups also.
The whole point behind adding these key words to the search data base was to make it quicker to look for obvious political groups that needed to be looked at closer in this time period. AT THIS TIME THE TEA PARTY WAS THE BIG GROUP APPLYING FOR THESE EXEMPTIONS. In this time period very few democrat leaning groups were applying for tax exempt status but very large numbers of conservative groups were because they had lost the recent election.
This is a common practice in the IRS. They did not purposely target conservative groups. THE GUY WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE IRS AT THE TIME WAS APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH.
Once again this is a made up controversy from the republicans and faux news.
your post is more left wing nonsense.
"way more conservative groups were applying for tax exempt status." anyone who uses the term "way more" shouldn't be taken very seriously. i have not seen one source that has said that significantly more groups were right wingers than left wingers. the word that continues to be used is DISPROPORTIONATE, which necessarily implies that, even if more right winger groups applied, they nonetheless were examined in relatively greater numbers than their lefty counterparts. the IRS has NOT claimed this to be the case and you simply are making that fact up.
"obvious that a large number of the groups did not deserve tax-exempt status."
this is another fact that you pulled out of the thin air. obvious to whom? do you mean the IRS before it even looked at their books? right. moreover, the IRS has not claimed that its policy rooted out many right wing fraudulent groups, which maybe would somewhat justify the policy.
"very few democrat leaning groups were applying for tax exempt status but very large numbers of conservative groups were because they had lost the recent election."
another made up fact. so leading up to the 2012 election, almost no lefty groups were formed? that's pure fiction but thanks for trying to peddle it as fact.
also, i like how you guys think that just because W appointed the head of the IRS, then nothing bad could happen under his watch regarding conservative groups. who nominated chief justice roberts? you know, the one who cast the deciding vote in favor of obamacare. who originally appointed the bernanke? you know, the one who is obama's chief henchman with his QE^infinity to keep the stock market up. it's unclear whether this policy even made its way up to the head of the IRS but to summarily dismiss that person from having any culpability due to the fact that W appointed him shows how truly naive you are.
You didn't read the actual transcript of the apology did you? Nor did you read the general explanation of what happened? Nor did you see the years they were following this policy did you?
Go back and read it and then you can come back here and apologize.
Thank you,
Drew G wrote:
You're a moron if you think all Dems voted for Obama. There were certainly Repubs who voted for the other side. And if info had come out that Obama was lying, you can bet more Dems would have crossed over.
My name is Lance wrote:
5 years into the barACK! & mooooooochelle train wreck & you're still defending their integrity? That's just naive, blinding stupidity, son..
WTF are you babbling about? Please learn to read before posting. Talk about blinding stupidity. Thanks, son.
What we learned from this is that conservatives only like profiling when it's not them.
Got it. Carry on.
t-bone sam wrote:
What we learned from this is that conservatives only like profiling when it's not them.
Got it. Carry on.
Lame
Thereinliestherub wrote:
t-bone sam wrote:What we learned from this is that conservatives only like profiling when it's not them.
Got it. Carry on.
Lame
Truth!
t-bone sam wrote:
What we learned from this is that conservatives only like profiling when it's not them.
Got it. Carry on.
+1
doper wrote:
[quote]Profiling wrote:"Republicans have never had a problem with profiling in other instances."[quote]
if you want people to take you seriously, you should consider not making such statements that make you sounds like a moron. name one instance where republicans targeted democrats, simply for being democrats, via a supposedly neutral branch of the government where there wasn't a universal outcry of outrage. the level of stupidity on these boards never ceases to amaze me.
This.
Not familiar with the 1.2 million tax laws that are evolving yearly but let me try to figure this out...
No political organizations can receive tax exempt status?
Tea Party or Patriot should not be audited, they should be instantly denied and thrown out. Are they not a political affiliation?
Democratic, Liberal, donkey, or Obama-fill in the blank "business" names should be looked at, audited and thrown out as well. They too are politically affiliated. Too many people cheat tax laws.
Class project. Get on the phone and say Jihad, walk in the airport and say bomb, or walk in a bank with a ski mask on. Guaranteed you get recorded, arrested, or shot. Yes, auditing SUCKS!!!
Dejected loyal player wrote:
[quote]doper wrote:
[quote]Profiling wrote:"Republicans have never had a problem with profiling in other instances."[quote]
if you want people to take you seriously, you should consider not making such statements that make you sounds like a moron. name one instance where republicans targeted democrats, simply for being democrats, via a supposedly neutral branch of the government where there wasn't a universal outcry of outrage. the level of stupidity on these boards never ceases to amaze me.
Ummm... Have you heard of the rupublican lead group in the American government called the US Senate? They have pledged to purposely block or deny ANYTHING that supports the President of the United Sates (democrats). An audit is nothing compared to purposely going against to the people they "represent" in the their respective states.
Abc123 wrote:
Not familiar with the 1.2 million tax laws that are evolving yearly but let me try to figure this out...
No political organizations can receive tax exempt status?
Tea Party or Patriot should not be audited, they should be instantly denied and thrown out. Are they not a political affiliation?
Democratic, Liberal, donkey, or Obama-fill in the blank "business" names should be looked at, audited and thrown out as well. They too are politically affiliated. Too many people cheat tax laws.
Class project. Get on the phone and say Jihad, walk in the airport and say bomb, or walk in a bank with a ski mask on. Guaranteed you get recorded, arrested, or shot. Yes, auditing SUCKS!!!
why don't you do a little research before blindly posting?
right from wiki:
501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[31] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[32] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[33]
Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[34] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[35]
The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[36][37] Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[
Abc123 wrote:
Not familiar with the 1.2 million tax laws that are evolving yearly but let me try to figure this out...
No political organizations can receive tax exempt status?
Tea Party or Patriot should not be audited, they should be instantly denied and thrown out. Are they not a political affiliation?
Democratic, Liberal, donkey, or Obama-fill in the blank "business" names should be looked at, audited and thrown out as well. They too are politically affiliated. Too many people cheat tax laws.
Class project. Get on the phone and say Jihad, walk in the airport and say bomb, or walk in a bank with a ski mask on. Guaranteed you get recorded, arrested, or shot. Yes, auditing SUCKS!!!
If you don't like current policy, work to change it. That isn't the issue here. The issue is did the IRS unfairly single out conservative groups. The answer is yes - the IRS has admitted it.
Obama would have had a difficult time getting reelected without George Soro's Moveon.org or Obama's community organizing group Organizing for America - reorganized after the election and is now called Organizing for Action. While Obama condemns the 1% -he loves taking money for them. He is attending three more fundraisers tonight - hobnobbing with the Hollywood elite at 20K/plate dinners. No press allowed - of course.
[quote]Abc123 wrote:
Not familiar with the 1.2 million tax laws that are evolving yearly but let me try to figure this out...
No political organizations can receive tax exempt status?
A: Umm, no. They can as 527 organizations.
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Political-Organizations
Tea Party or Patriot should not be audited, they should be instantly denied and thrown out. Are they not a political affiliation?
A: Tea Party or Patriot were not audited. Several, that were politically-based, tried to file as 501c3 non-profits rather than 527. As a 527 they have to reveal their donors. As a 501 they do not. The law is they must be 527 unless they can prove are not politically-based.
Democratic, Liberal, donkey, or Obama-fill in the blank "business" names should be looked at, audited and thrown out as well. They too are politically affiliated. Too many people cheat tax laws.
A: The key word auditing for "Tea Party" or "Patriot" occurred under the IRS leadership of a Bush appointee.
Class project. Get on the phone and say Jihad, walk in the airport and say bomb, or walk in a bank with a ski mask on. Guaranteed you get recorded, arrested, or shot. Yes, auditing SUCKS!!!
A: The Tea Party or Patriot groups were not audited. There applications as 501c3 were scrutinized, as all politically-based groups trying to do an end-around the law should be. There are likely some legit Tea Party or Patriot 501c3s, but it does seem many should have filed as 527s.
Abc123 wrote:
Dejected loyal player wrote:[quote]doper wrote:
[quote]Profiling wrote:"Republicans have never had a problem with profiling in other instances."[quote]
if you want people to take you seriously, you should consider not making such statements that make you sounds like a moron. name one instance where republicans targeted democrats, simply for being democrats, via a supposedly neutral branch of the government where there wasn't a universal outcry of outrage. the level of stupidity on these boards never ceases to amaze me.
Ummm... Have you heard of the rupublican lead group in the American government called the US Senate? They have pledged to purposely block or deny ANYTHING that supports the President of the United Sates (democrats). An audit is nothing compared to purposely going against to the people they "represent" in the their respective states.
who is the head of the rupublican [sic] lead group? i do know that the democrats control the senate so it can't be them. you may want to take both a civics and a grammar class before posting again.
doper wrote:
why don't you do a little research before blindly posting?
right from wiki:
501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[31] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[32] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[33]
Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[34] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[35]
The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[36][37] Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[
Just because you can copy and paste from Wiki means nothing. I've actually personally filled and been granted non-profit organization with a 501c (3) tax-exempt status through a track club that I run, but that still does not mean I know all the loopholes and legal wording.
Since you have the power to copy and paste, please use your superior analysis to explain what all the hoopla is about. One group tried to cheat, but the tax cops only looked at them for their cheating ways? Sorry, still don't get it...
doper wrote:[/
who is the head of the rupublican [sic] lead group? i do know that the democrats control the senate so it can't be them. you may want to take both a civics and a grammar class before posting again.
Lets pretend I said House of Reps instead of senate (my mistake). Would your response change? I'm doing this on my iPhone so be prepared for more grammatical errors professor... At least that gives you something to attack besides a real answer...
Abc123 wrote:
doper wrote:why don't you do a little research before blindly posting?
right from wiki:
501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[31] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[32] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[33]
Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[34] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[35]
The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[36][37] Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[
Just because you can copy and paste from Wiki means nothing. I've actually personally filled and been granted non-profit organization with a 501c (3) tax-exempt status through a track club that I run, but that still does not mean I know all the loopholes and legal wording.
Since you have the power to copy and paste, please use your superior analysis to explain what all the hoopla is about. One group tried to cheat, but the tax cops only looked at them for their cheating ways? Sorry, still don't get it...
well, it means that i am one step ahead of you and your moronic proclamation of "No political organizations can receive tax exempt status?" that is patently false. these aren't loopholes we are talking about 501c4s can expressly engage in political activity. perhaps you also might want to add on a reading comprehension class as well because you clearly struggle with reading basic sentences and processing what they mean.
i'm not even going to bother with your last paragraph because you come off as a 12-year old. you obviously have access to a computer. do us all a favor and use google to try and educate yourself just a little bit on this topic. on the one hand, it's sad to see that there actually are people as uninformed and clueless as yourself. on the other hand, it makes me feel a little bit better about myself.
Abc123 wrote:
doper wrote:[/who is the head of the rupublican [sic] lead group? i do know that the democrats control the senate so it can't be them. you may want to take both a civics and a grammar class before posting again.
Lets pretend I said House of Reps instead of senate (my mistake). Would your response change? I'm doing this on my iPhone so be prepared for more grammatical errors professor... At least that gives you something to attack besides a real answer...
no. you clearly did not know that the dems control the senate and the repubs control the house and that had nothing to do with being on an iphone -- just pure stupidity. it's also not like anything else you have written hasn't been chock full of errors. i almost am thinking that you are going out of your way to sound like an idiot.
doper wrote:
well, it means that i am one step ahead of you and your moronic proclamation of "No political organizations can receive tax exempt status?" that is patently false. these aren't loopholes we are talking about 501c4s can expressly engage in political activity. perhaps you also might want to add on a reading comprehension class as well because you clearly struggle with reading basic sentences and processing what they mean.
i'm not even going to bother with your last paragraph because you come off as a 12-year old. you obviously have access to a computer. do us all a favor and use google to try and educate yourself just a little bit on this topic. on the one hand, it's sad to see that there actually are people as uninformed and clueless as yourself. on the other hand, it makes me feel a little bit better about myself.
I'm sorry Jesus! Oops, I mean Doper... I didn't mean to challenge your perfection... Pretty typical though... I said nothing disrespectful to you, but you take it upon yourself to challenge my education, age, reading ability, and common sense in one swift post. All while monitoring the board to challenge every grammatical error or point of view unlike yours. The one thing you and many other republicans will learn every 4 years. America IS NOT LIKE YOU! Please keep this up, you are the best thing for the Democratic Party. ARROGANCE!