Seems a bit wonky.
Who do social welfare groups get to hide who their donors are when no other tax exempt group can?
I would think you'd have an appreciation for this.
A lot of people who give to charities only want to see good work done, they don't want any recognition or credit to themselves. For it to be a truly selfless act it needs to be anonymous.501(c)4s are supposed to be the specific exception for charitable groups to qualify for so that their donors can maintain anonymity.
Unfortunately, the ability to keep your donors hidden has become a goal for the ultra-rich who are trying to rig the system. And have thus, the last bastion for charity has been co-opted for political gamesmanship.
I also know the law is pretty lax on what they can legally do.
The law is pretty clear, and stringent, on what is allowed. The IRS, unfortunately, has been pretty derelict in enforcing those laws.
The big problem for the IRS is that, by approving them in the end, they've pretty much killed any chance at succeeding with an argument that the extra scrutiny was justified.
Which, in the end, is the real scandal.
This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.I am astonished! Who could have predicted you fleeing this thread?
No one, I say!
Super classy man. Real classy.
Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.
Awwww, keep trying, Cobalt.
You might get someone to care about the huge scandal that is Benghazi.
Some day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Super classy man. Real classy.This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.I am astonished! Who could have predicted you fleeing this thread?
No one, I say!
Thanks, but it's nothing compared to the class of throwing your hands up in the air and storming out of a thread full of people (save Cobalt and Andrew_R) who think the things you're saying are silly! I can only aspire to that.
Benghazi? [Yawn]
What about Majer?
Thanks, but it's nothing compared to the class of throwing your hands up in the air and storming out of a thread full of people (save Cobalt and Andrew_R) who think the things you're saying are silly! I can only aspire to that.Super classy man. Real classy.This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.I am astonished! Who could have predicted you fleeing this thread?
No one, I say!
.....All I can do is shake my head. Are you really that desperate for a pointless text sparring match? That you have to resort to things like this?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of sad that of all the scandals "rocking" the Obama administration, one of them isn't the 100-f##!ing-day hunger strike by a bunch of dudes who appear to have been, in my humble opinion, locked away for 11 years for no apparent reason
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.....All I can do is shake my head. Are you really that desperate for a pointless text sparring match? That you have to resort to things like this?Thanks, but it's nothing compared to the class of throwing your hands up in the air and storming out of a thread full of people (save Cobalt and Andrew_R) who think the things you're saying are silly! I can only aspire to that.Super classy man. Real classy.This thread is going bad places. Time to punch out.I am astonished! Who could have predicted you fleeing this thread?
No one, I say!
Come on, you know me.
I'm at least that desperate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of sad that of all the scandals "rocking" the Obama administration, one of them isn't the 100-f~@@ing-day hunger strike by a bunch of dudes who appear to have been, in my humble opinion, locked away for 11 years for no apparent reason
The only reason any of these things are actually "scandals" to begin with is that the Republican party thinks it can score political points with its base and some moderates by using them against the Obama administration.
The Republican party doesn't think it can win any points by taking a position that could easily be labeled as "soft on terror", even if it is a chance to be critical of the President. So Guantanamo hunger strikes don't make the cut.
These aren't scandals because they're actually scandalous. These are scandals because they are opportunities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just happy that a thread I created got more than one post.
Huzzah!
I'm one of the cool kids now!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.
I know where he was. Obama was coordinating the attack on the consulate while lounging in his golden bathtub (filled with the tears of True Americans(tm)) whilst plotting with the acting directory of the CIA to oppress Tea Party Patriots and with Eric Holder to target the AP. Shortly thereafter, he drove his solar-powered, tax-advantaged limo to Arlington and met up with his Muslim brothers to piss on the graves of U.S. Servicemen.
Of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These aren't scandals because they're actually scandalous. These are scandals because they are opportunities.
Oh, I know. Still, there's probably a lot of scandal in Benghazi, just not where the Repubs are looking.
Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.I know where he was. Obama was coordinating the attack on the consulate while lounging in his golden bathtub (filled with the tears of True Americans(tm)) whilst plotting with the acting directory of the CIA to oppress Tea Party Patriots and with Eric Holder to target the AP. Shortly thereafter, he drove his solar-powered, tax-advantaged limo to Arlington and met up with his Muslim brothers to piss on the graves of U.S. Servicemen.
Of course.
Hmm.
See, I had heard he was having his way with a bald eagle at the ground zero mosque.
It's kind of sad that of all the scandals "rocking" the Obama administration, one of them isn't the 100-f&+!ing-day hunger strike by a bunch of dudes who appear to have been, in my humble opinion, locked away for 11 years for no apparent reason
No kidding.
Though I suspect it would be too easy for that one to backfire on Congress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
See, I had heard he was having his way with a bald eagle at the ground zero mosque.
That's what you get for trusting the liberal media.
|
Who broke the law? As I understand it, the IRS applied extra scrutiny, demanded more extensive documentation, but didn't actually deny anyone.
If these groups were breaking the law, shouldn't they have been denied?Filing as a social welfare organization when you are in fact a political organization is breaking the law.
Apparently the irs was afraid of being labeled as partisan and so took no action to actually enforce that law. Crazy notion huh? ... that not actually acting on it would be a shield or something. Even the mere THOUGHT of doing your job raises too much of a specter of big brother...
So your claim here is that all these organizations were breaking the law by filing as social welfare groups, despite the agency in charge deciding they were?
That rather than being too partisan by selecting these groups for scrutiny, they were actually being too soft on conservative groups by giving them the status in the end? That's going to take some proving. It's not going to work well as a defense, without a lot more evidence than we've seen so far.
especially when the IRS has it in there own documents that the groups were targeted solely by conservative leaning names alone. Not the content. not the goals of the group. the names alone.
|
|
Seems a bit wonky.
Who do social welfare groups get to hide who their donors are when no other tax exempt group can?I would think you'd have an appreciation for this.
A lot of people who give to charities only want to see good work done, they don't want any recognition or credit to themselves. For it to be a truly selfless act it needs to be anonymous.501(c)4s are supposed to be the specific exception for charitable groups to qualify for so that their donors can maintain anonymity.
Unfortunately, the ability to keep your donors hidden has become a goal for the ultra-rich who are trying to rig the system. And have thus, the last bastion for charity has been co-opted for political gamesmanship.
Very true, but on ALL levels of our politics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
especially when the IRS has it in there own documents that the groups were targeted solely by conservative leaning names alone. Not the content. not the goals of the group. the names alone.
Again, if you're going to break the law and use the exact same name as everyone else breaking the law don't be surprised when you get caught.
If all it takes to flag your crime to the folks policing the situation to google your name you obviously didn't hide it well enough. They deserve to be caught for their stupidity, instead they got off scott free. They're whining because the cops even stopped them.
especially when the IRS has it in there own documents that the groups were targeted solely by conservative leaning names alone. Not the content. not the goals of the group. the names alone.Again, if you're going to break the law and use the exact same name as everyone else breaking the law don't be surprised when you get caught.
If all it takes to flag your crime to the folks policing the situation to google your name you obviously didn't hide it well enough. They deserve to be caught for their stupidity, instead they got off scott free. They're whining because the cops even stopped them.
These groups were targeted based solely on name. That was Not Okay. Even after being subjected to an increased level of scrutiny, they were still deemed in compliance with the requirements and granted the status requested. Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?
Also, please don't make me agree with Andrew R again. I feel so...funky.
Try this: Imagine groups applying for tax exempt status are more closely scrutinized if they contain the word "progressive." This additional level of scrutiny is based on someone's belief that "all progressives are the same" and are "up to no good." Even after the increased scrutiny, the groups are vindicated and granted the status requested. Yet the screening continues.
How is anyone OK with this?
Edit: Once again, this is coming from someone who thinks the typical member of the "tea party" is being played harder than an XBox.
Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?
Fraud.
Fraud.
Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?
Were the groups in question convicted of fraud? Or even charged?
Linkage?
Fraud.
Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?Were the groups in question convicted of fraud? Or even charged?
Linkage?
I didn't know you had to be convicted to be a criminal.
They are posing as apolitical social welfare groups.They are completely political groups, defrauding the American people of tax dollars, not to mention throwing a wrench in the campaign finance process.
What's not to get?
These groups were targeted based solely on name. That was Not Okay.
It is eminently ok.
The Legitimate businessman's association of Portland is found to be a crime syndicate.
The Associated legitimate business men of Portland is also found to be a crime syndicate.
The Legitimate Portland businessmen association is also found to be a crime syndicate.
Do ya think someone MIGHT want to send out a memo advising people to be on the lookout for the Portland Legitimate Businessman's association?
Seriously, what level of idiotic inanity do you have to expect of government officials NOT to notice a pattern here? Thats how their names got targeted, by a LOT of other people using similar if not the same names being pretty obvious about not being an educational or social welfare group.
Even after being subjected to an increased level of scrutiny, they were still deemed in compliance with the requirements and granted the status requested. Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?
They are not in compliance. Congress made the IRS let them through anyway. They are political organizations pretending to be educational organizations. Its sadly becoming a standard practice, but the tea party's use of it was incredibly blatant.
Its like busting someone for going 15 miles per hour over the limit and then saying "hey! hey! thats discrimination, he's going 5 miles over the limit, how come you stopped me instead?"
Look, I can bribe a congressman with a business lunch, a business trip, or a campaign donation, but if i just walk into his office and dump a shopping bag full of 100 dollar bills onto his desk, we're both going to jail. A LITTLE plausibility that people are actually in control of their governments actions is required by the system.. or at least it was.
Also, if we want another fact to debate the deep political, no one in the media knows where Obama was for 5 hours, during which the consulate was attacked.I know where he was. Obama was coordinating the attack on the consulate while lounging in his golden bathtub (filled with the tears of True Americans(tm)) whilst plotting with the acting directory of the CIA to oppress Tea Party Patriots and with Eric Holder to target the AP. Shortly thereafter, he drove his solar-powered, tax-advantaged limo to Arlington and met up with his Muslim brothers to piss on the graves of U.S. Servicemen.
Of course.
It all makes sense now!
I'll admit, that gave me a good laugh.
Also, my grammar was horrific in that first post and I apologize to anyone who read it for witnessing such atrocities.
Look, my opinion of the tea party groups is about the same as yours, but you keep saying things that I don't see backed up:
Do you have evidence that they kept finding these groups not in compliance and were forced by Congress to let them through anyway?
While this was happening, several committees in Congress were writing numerous letters IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman to express concern because tea party groups were complaining of IRS harassment.- Linky
Do you have evidence of a pattern of groups found not to be in compliance before they started searching on these key words?
How many "Go back to kenya" signs does the tea party need to wave to be considered an election organization rather than a social welfare group?
_____
The agency added that groups with “tea party” in their names probably would have been selected for additional scrutiny regardless of the initial search
“In most cases the organization would have been centralized based on the information included in the application,” the agency said, adding, “The IRS should have focused on this information instead of using a shortcut.”Linky
You mean the exact fraud none of them were found to commit yet liberal groups were not even looked at even if they commit the exact "offense" you claim these are?Fraud.
Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?
First off, your accusatory demeanor does not serve you.
Second, the facts are quite different; the IRS did indeed target liberal political groups, just not to the same degree. I suspect this is a function of how many conservative political groups cropped up when the dam broke post-Citizens United and how transparently fraudulent they are/were.
Third, and most importantly, I've said time and again (in this very thread) that regardless of political affiliation, non charitable groups ought not be able to gain 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. I'd think you would be agreeing with me. I'm not even sure why this assertion is in contest; it's the law.
This line from McBeth sums up my feelings on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP wiretaps.
'Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
--McBeth
Times about ninety-million.
What the Republicans "need" is an ounce of integrity between the whole of them. They care about nothing but power and they accomplish exactly nothing because of it. You fool yourself if you vote for them. They don't give a crap about religion, gun rights, individual freedom, or any of their talking points. They tell you they do, you vote for them, and what do they do about any of it? Zilch. And those amongst them who DO care somewhat about those things? Are out of their minds nuts and could not be trusted with those things if you held a gun on their dog and pumped them full of nice juice.
The fact that there is a thread suggesting, whether in jest or not, that in order to win or accomplish something, they need the other guys to screw up, pretty much says it all. You're supposed to be able to point to the GOOD things your party does as the things that define them. Not the screw-ups of others.
|
|
You mean the exact fraud none of them were found to commit yet liberal groups were not even looked at even if they commit the exact "offense" you claim these are?Fraud.
Exactly what _crime_ are you talking about?First off, your accusatory demeanor does not serve you.
Second, the facts are quite different; the IRS did indeed target liberal political groups, just not to the same degree. I suspect this is a function of how many conservative political groups cropped up when the dam broke post-Citizens United and how transparently fraudulent they are/were.
Third, and most importantly, I've said time and again (in this very thread) that regardless of political affiliation, non charitable groups ought not be able to gain 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. I'd think you would be agreeing with me. I'm not even sure why this assertion is in contest; it's the law.
You are being accusatory, claim fraud with no proof because they are conservative groups seemingly.
No groups should be tax free or all should. political or otherwise.
I didn't know you had to be convicted to be a criminal.
They are posing as apolitical social welfare groups.
They are completely political groups, defrauding the American people of tax dollars, not to mention throwing a wrench in the campaign finance process.What's not to get?
No one said you had to be convicted to be a criminal, but as the person asserting someone's guilt, you have the burden of proof. That's how logic (and our courts) work.
So I ask again: Do you have any evidence?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know you had to be convicted to be a criminal.
They are posing as apolitical social welfare groups.
They are completely political groups, defrauding the American people of tax dollars, not to mention throwing a wrench in the campaign finance process.What's not to get?
No one said you had to be convicted to be a criminal, but as the person asserting someone's guilt, you have the burden of proof. That's how logic (and our courts) work.
So I ask again: Do you have any evidence?
For the love of pete...
15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
Linky, off the tea party's own site
This is a political organization. NOT an educational or public welfare one. On the "how to start your own tea party" there's a picture of barack obama that says "Not eligible" Are you still with me or do you want to play epistemic nihilist?
Some other choice tidbits from the site:
From our founding, the Tea Party represents the voice of the true owners of the United States: WE THE PEOPLE.
“We must take back our nation!”
Today, tens of millions of Patriot voices resonate in unison “We The People Rule!”
Many of America’s dilemmas lay squarely on the shoulders of We The People
Now, when you see a slew of "educational" organizations using the exact same words as a blatantly political organization, how on earth do you NOT conclude that its a political organization?
Further more...
"I have no idea myself who those people were," said Ken Johnson, the group's president. "I really saw (the IRS request) as that was the profiling of our type of our organization so that we would not be able to carry out some of the things that we planned to do in the primaries and the general election."Linky
He outright admits that its for a political election, which is precisely what that exception is NOT to be used for. You can use it to provide anything from tribbles to tots to Laptops to Liberians but you cannot use that exception for political purposes and that is precisely what they were filing under.
Now, He very well could be filing for the wrong thing- He probably is. But someone told him to file for that very specific exemption and they should have known better. The IRS agents have every right to turn him down or to tell him to go file under a different non profit that does have to disclose its doners because that is specifically what those IRS agents exist to do.
As for evidence that this is what happened with the IRS agents , this took me 5 minutes on google to find. What you apparently want to raise is the possibility that the IRS agents first went after the key words and then found a reason to decline them, for that YOU need provide evidence because you're trying to prove malfeasance on the part of the IRS workers rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt in having two synapses fire at the same time.
So...no?
So...no?
Are you kidding me?
The organization is blatantly political
Someone filing one of the letters is disappointeded they can't do what they were planning to do during the election
What isn't registering as evidence with you? What isn't clicking with you to show that this was the easiest conclussion in the world to reach? or are you just messing with me here?
Its like saying "hey, the guy applied for a business permit to sell pot, was walking around with a t shirt that says I sell pot, and we have him on video selling pot, but you can't disprove the idea that the government illegally raided his house , saw there was pot there, and so they decided to follow him"
What on earth would evidence look like to you? I feel like I'm talking to darkwingduck again
Report: Republicans were source of bogus Benghazi quotes
What a "scandal".
These groups were applying for 501c4 status, correct?
***
501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, 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.[35] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[36]
501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[37] 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.[38] 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.[39] 501(c)(4) organizations are not permitted direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.[36]
*****
So, as I'm pretty sure 501c4 is what was being applied for, yes, such groups can do political work.
Admitting to planning to have work to do in the election does not eliminate them from consideration.
They can cover topics and ideas.
Thus, some groups made ads where they showed a guy pushing an old lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.
That is how wide a net that"social welfare" covers.
Having differing definitions of social welfare based upon your beliefs does not give one the right to state their beliefs are not regarding social welfare.
Basically, whether you like it or not, the government is heavily involved in our daily lives.
Gun ownership being sacred is a political belief? So is the belief that race should not matter. But, both qualify as being considered rights and belief that one's rights should be protected is very strongly correlated to social welfare.
Government must be downsized? As stated, government is involved throughout our lives at every level whether you think it is appropriate or not. There are countless things advocated by tax exempt organizations that are directly related to government.
Educating people regarding these things and promoting them is acceptable behavior.
Just to note, since I think this keeps being overlooked is that this isn't a bunch of conservative suddenly crying foul.
That happened a long time ago.
It brought about an audit of the IRS by the IG.
IRS audit found political bias against conservatives; groups gave up after application delay
***
The IRS singled out tea party and other conservative groups for “burdensome” scrutiny because of their politically charged names and delayed approving some applications for so long that the groups simply gave up, according to an official government audit, released Tuesday, that has the agency reeling.
***
There is the evidence they misapplied their work specifically at these groups. That is the audit finding.
If they had been treated similarly to other such groups (liberal, etc.) the audit would not have found they were singled out.
If ten times the number of applicants as other groups resulted in ten times the number of audits the IG wouldn't have found a problem.
If the process were not inappropriately burdensome when applied to these groups he IG 's audit would not have concluded this.
There has been a lot of talk about this being OK to do to tea party groups because it has also been done to other groups. But, no evidence has been given to support calling the IG claims invalid but perhaps I have missed it due to not reading the whole thread.
from the NPR
10 Things We Learned From the IRS Inspector General Report
****
Scintillating isn't how you'd describe the report issued by the Treasury inspector general's report on the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups.
It was written, after all, by government bureaucrats for government bureaucrats. Enough said.
Still, peel back the careful, cautious and colorless language and there are some eyebrow-raising tidbits in the report that give a sense of the dysfunction in the tax-exempt unit that allowed the controversial targeting to occur.
Here are 10 of them:
The IG report was our first source without skin in the game (like IRS and White House officials) to report that agency employees said no outsiders influenced them to target conservative applicants. (Page 7)
The IRS employees responsible for applying greater scrutiny to groups with "Tea Party" or "Patriots" in their names were evidently incorrigible. After their boss told them to cease and desist they did, temporarily. Then they went back to doing their own thing, which meant using inappropriate filters to select applicants for additional review. (Page 7)
At one point, in an agency of 106,000 workers, just one, presumably very overwhelmed, bureaucrat had the job of reviewing applications for tax-exempt status that were selected for greater scrutiny because the information raised questions about their political activities. (Page 5, Footnote 14)
The inspector general says "it's considering" following up its first evaluation with a deeper dive into exactly how the IRS unit it studied monitors the political activities of the "social welfare" groups it grants tax-exempt status. It wants to make sure the unit knows when such organizations cross the line to engage in too much politics. (Page 4, Footnote 12)
Even employees in the IRS's tax-exempt unit were stupefied by the rules about which they had to make decisions. They were so confused, their bosses decided they needed hands-on training — after which an absurdly low and slow 2 percent application approval rate soared. Given the political sensitivity of this part of the IRS's work, you might have expected the training to happen sooner. The problems remain, however, according to the IG, and the guidance the workers labor under is vague at best. (Page 14)
Some applications for tax-exempt status were, astonishingly, under review for as long as three years. What's even more remarkable is that even though the law gives applicants the right to sue the IRS if they failed to get a conclusive response from the agency within 270 days, none did, at least not during the two years of the IG's investigation. Maybe Americans aren't as litigious as they're often given credit for being. (Page 16)
Even after the IG pointed out the error of their ways, IRS officials were, to some extent, still not seeing things as clearly as the IG thought they should. For instance, IRS officials said issues the IG raised had been resolved. The IG flatly contradicted them, saying no, they hadn't been fixed. (Opening memo)
Some applications from groups with evidence of substantial political activity weren't forwarded to the team that had the task of giving applications extra scrutiny. Others that lacked evidence of significant political activity weren't sent to the IRS review team for further investigation. (Pages 9-10)
IRS workers must watch a lot of TV cop dramas: They described their list of names to watch for as the "be on the lookout for" or BOLO list. (Page 6)
When the agency asked for additional information — information the IG ultimately deemed to be irrelevant to the applications in question — the IRS would ask applicants to meet their requests within three weeks even though the IRS had essentially sat on some of the applications for more than a year. That's what New Yorkers would call chutzpah. (Page 18)
***
Although there are reasons to think this doesn't extend to the White House (assuming you take at their word the employees who said it was all on their own), there is ample reason to say that things were improperly done and specifically improperly targeted at certain groups.
Back to the original topic ...
If this is true, then things are already going south for the GOP.
The thing:
Their primary purpose was political. That's blatantly obvious. They were filing under the wrong exception and the people in charge of that exception were right to give them the extra scrutiny or deny them.
CBS reports Cliff's Notes don't match exact text from books.
SCANDAL!
CBS reports Cliff's Notes don't match exact text from books.
SCANDAL!
My wife loves that show.
Why does no one seem to remember that the republican controlled House cut embassy security funding before Bengahzi occurred?
Because it is not politically expedient.
Back to the original topic ...
If this is true, then things are already going south for the GOP.
That's just the liberal media closing ranks to protect a socialist. ;-)