Orwellian USA

[Woodruff]

http://crooksandliars.com/dave-johnson/latest-lie-irs-targeted-conservatives

If it's all a lie that it happened, why did the IRS come out and apologize 2 weeks ago for doing it? Remember, they started all these investigations, not Congress (although Congress did try to last year and seems like they were misled at that time).

I know you're trying to twist this to make it appear that it's still President Obama's fault, but surely you read the part where "they handled procedures wrong". That wasn't a lie...the IRS fucked up. But what IS the lie is that it was specifically conservative groups that were targeted. All kinds of groups were targeted, and only about a third of them apparently were conservative groups. That is the lie. Basically, what you said...that was the lie.

What is with all of this revisionist history?

It isn't revisionist history, it is the facts of the situation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups

The IRS specifically came out and apologized for targeting conservatives. None of the rest of the article talks about what the other focus words were nor does it specify who the other groups that were targeted were. It only states that roughly a quarter of the groups were singled out specifically because of "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in the name. That doesn't mean that every other group was non-political or even non-conservative.

They apologized to conservative groups because conservative groups are the ones who brought this to the forefront (and I don't blame them for that), making the big stink about it. Basically, the conservative groups are looking for a response, so they got one.

And even if we believe your assertion that other groups were targeted, that doesn't make it right either.

It isn't my assertion. It's actually well-established in this case.

The IRS has no authority to intimidate groups into providing every single detail on every single member and donor. It doesn't matter what group it is.

Is there a reason you believe this is a revelation to me or that I would disagree with it? I've essentially already said the same thing in this thread. In fact, in this very post you responded to.

[Woodruff]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

[Woodruff]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

How were they defrauding the taxpayers? Remember, as Juan likes to point out, none of their applications were denied....they were only delayed for 18-27 months (conveniently until after the election).

A fair few of them withdrew their applications.

Right, because they refused to comply with the outrageous demands against the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Ok, NOW YOU ARE actually overstating things. I mean seriously.

[Woodruff]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

How were they defrauding the taxpayers? Remember, as Juan likes to point out, none of their applications were denied....they were only delayed for 18-27 months (conveniently until after the election).

Would "trying to defraud" be an acceptable compromise then?

No, because they weren't. They were doing what was perfectly legal yet were targeted for what they were doing.

What compromise would you accept then? You've accepted that these groups were applying for tax exemptions they weren't legally allowed.

I don't recall Night Strike "accepting" that. I haven't actually seen ANYONE "accepting" that in this thread.

I've accepted that many were rejected in their attempts to defraud.

But they weren't. At least, not that I've seen.

[Symmetry]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

That would be where the extra scrutiny comes in with the audits, no? I still don't agree with the targeting, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

[Woodruff]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

That would be where the extra scrutiny comes in with the audits, no? I still don't agree with the targeting, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

In this case, I don't believe so. The "extra scrutiny" was the result of simple word-catches rather than actual reasons. In fact, that is very precisely why this IS a problem (though not as large of one as SOME would like to believe, as the facts appear at this point). If the "extra scrutiny" had been caused by the hint of defraudation (is that a word?) rather than what was essentially an arbitrary factor, then this would not be a problem.

[Night Strike]

Right, because they refused to comply with the outrageous demands against the freedoms of speech and assembly.

I have yet to see any evidence of that other than accusations by people that withdrew their applications... which could just as easily be them trying to scam the IRS and jumping on the "lets blame them" bandwagon.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/revealed-see-the-letter-the-irs-sent-to-one-local-tea-party-and-the-detailed-demands-it-made/

[Symmetry]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

That would be where the extra scrutiny comes in with the audits, no? I still don't agree with the targeting, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

In this case, I don't believe so. The "extra scrutiny" was the result of simple word-catches rather than actual reasons. In fact, that is very precisely why this IS a problem (though not as large of one as SOME would like to believe, as the facts appear at this point). If the "extra scrutiny" had been caused by the hint of defraudation (is that a word?) rather than what was essentially an arbitrary factor, then this would not be a problem.

That comes in after the application phase.

defrauding

[Woodruff]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

That would be where the extra scrutiny comes in with the audits, no? I still don't agree with the targeting, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

In this case, I don't believe so. The "extra scrutiny" was the result of simple word-catches rather than actual reasons. In fact, that is very precisely why this IS a problem (though not as large of one as SOME would like to believe, as the facts appear at this point). If the "extra scrutiny" had been caused by the hint of defraudation (is that a word?) rather than what was essentially an arbitrary factor, then this would not be a problem.

That comes in after the application phase.

defrauding

I guess I'm missing something you're explaining. Because I don't at all see where there is anything regarding "defrauding". Explain it to me like I'm Phatscotty.

[Symmetry]

In the righteous fury surrounding this, let's not forget that these groups were defrauding the tax payer. Not all of them, of course, but many were applying for tax exemptions while operating political chicanery. I mostly agree with NS on this, although I think he's gone too far right again.

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

That would be where the extra scrutiny comes in with the audits, no? I still don't agree with the targeting, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

In this case, I don't believe so. The "extra scrutiny" was the result of simple word-catches rather than actual reasons. In fact, that is very precisely why this IS a problem (though not as large of one as SOME would like to believe, as the facts appear at this point). If the "extra scrutiny" had been caused by the hint of defraudation (is that a word?) rather than what was essentially an arbitrary factor, then this would not be a problem.

That comes in after the application phase.

defrauding

I guess I'm missing something you're explaining. Because I don't at all see where there is anything regarding "defrauding". Explain it to me like I'm Phatscotty.

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

[Woodruff]

I don't think any of them were found to be attempting to defraud the taxpayer. Only one application, if I understand things correctly, was even denied, and that was a liberal group.

That would be where the extra scrutiny comes in with the audits, no? I still don't agree with the targeting, but let's not pretend there isn't a problem.

In this case, I don't believe so. The "extra scrutiny" was the result of simple word-catches rather than actual reasons. In fact, that is very precisely why this IS a problem (though not as large of one as SOME would like to believe, as the facts appear at this point). If the "extra scrutiny" had been caused by the hint of defraudation (is that a word?) rather than what was essentially an arbitrary factor, then this would not be a problem.

That comes in after the application phase.

defrauding

I guess I'm missing something you're explaining. Because I don't at all see where there is anything regarding "defrauding". Explain it to me like I'm Phatscotty.

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

[Nordik]

Right, because they refused to comply with the outrageous demands against the freedoms of speech and assembly.

I have yet to see any evidence of that other than accusations by people that withdrew their applications... which could just as easily be them trying to scam the IRS and jumping on the "lets blame them" bandwagon.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/revealed-see-the-letter-the-irs-sent-to-one-local-tea-party-and-the-detailed-demands-it-made/

Link only partially works. The bit that does work strikes me as fake though. Purely because the 2 bits of "letter" that are presented are in completely different fonts.

[Symmetry]

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

I had no links. Will this do?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html

[Woodruff]

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

I had no links. Will this do?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html

That article doesn't specify that applications were rejected OR that applicants were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates, unless I misread something.

[Symmetry]

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

I had no links. Will this do?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html

That article doesn't specify that applications were rejected OR that applicants were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates, unless I misread something.

I'm not sure that it's possible or even legal to give you that.

[Woodruff]

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

I had no links. Will this do?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html

That article doesn't specify that applications were rejected OR that applicants were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates, unless I misread something.

I'm not sure that it's possible or even legal to give you that.

But isn't that exactly what you were claiming?

[Symmetry]

A load of groups apply for tax exempt status. It later turns out that they've been conducting political campaigns on behalf of tea party candidates. They should have been paying tax if that was what they were doing.

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

I had no links. Will this do?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html

That article doesn't specify that applications were rejected OR that applicants were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates, unless I misread something.

I'm not sure that it's possible or even legal to give you that.

But isn't that exactly what you were claiming?

My generals position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

[ooge]

My generals position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.[/quote]

I second that.and after the citizen united ruling,there was a lot of groups that filed for 501c4,the IRS was overwhelmed.

[thegreekdog]

My generals position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

[insert obnoxious comment about the English language, grammar, and the use of those things; perhaps something about Belgium]

My generals position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

I second that.and after the citizen united ruling,there was a lot of groups that filed for 501c4,the IRS was overwhelmed.

Just to make sure I understand your premise, guys, you want the IRS to audit companies and individuals that avoid paying tax? So, like poor people too? You guys do understand that these groups were permitted, by law, to be tax-exempt organizations, right? I mean that's like saying that a single mother of three that claims the earned income tax credit is avoiding her taxes and should be audited. Or is it different depending upon who the tax "avoider" is?

[Night Strike]

Right, because they refused to comply with the outrageous demands against the freedoms of speech and assembly.

I have yet to see any evidence of that other than accusations by people that withdrew their applications... which could just as easily be them trying to scam the IRS and jumping on the "lets blame them" bandwagon.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/revealed-see-the-letter-the-irs-sent-to-one-local-tea-party-and-the-detailed-demands-it-made/

Link only partially works. The bit that does work strikes me as fake though. Purely because the 2 bits of "letter" that are presented are in completely different fonts.

Since I don't know what part of the page doesn't work for you, I'll just describe what's there. The two different "fonts" of the letter in the body of the story are actually the same font....they're just different zooms of cut/paste from a pdf image. In fact, the actual letter is embedded as a PDF on the page where you can tell they're the same font and part of the same letter as you scroll through the embedded file.

[Woodruff]

Based only on the fact that those applications were not rejected, I don't believe they were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates. I don't think I've seen evidence that they have, either. Do you have a link (or did you give one earlier that I overlooked)?

I had no links. Will this do?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/don-t-buy-the-social-welfare-defense-of-the-irs.html

That article doesn't specify that applications were rejected OR that applicants were found to have been conducting political campaigns on behalf of Tea Party candidates, unless I misread something.

I'm not sure that it's possible or even legal to give you that.

But isn't that exactly what you were claiming?

My generals position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

I am certainly in agreement with that. That is, of course, a far different thing than stating that those groups have attempted to defraud the taxpayer, which is what you claimed.

[Nordik]

Right, because they refused to comply with the outrageous demands against the freedoms of speech and assembly.

I have yet to see any evidence of that other than accusations by people that withdrew their applications... which could just as easily be them trying to scam the IRS and jumping on the "lets blame them" bandwagon.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/revealed-see-the-letter-the-irs-sent-to-one-local-tea-party-and-the-detailed-demands-it-made/

Link only partially works. The bit that does work strikes me as fake though. Purely because the 2 bits of "letter" that are presented are in completely different fonts.

Since I don't know what part of the page doesn't work for you, I'll just describe what's there. The two different "fonts" of the letter in the body of the story are actually the same font....they're just different zooms of cut/paste from a pdf image. In fact, the actual letter is embedded as a PDF on the page where you can tell they're the same font and part of the same letter as you scroll through the embedded file.

They are not the same font. Not even close. Just look at the v's. But it is the pdf that is not working for me.

Besides, if you're going to be claiming non-tax status, I see zero problem with any of those questions.

[Symmetry]

My general position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

I am certainly in agreement with that. That is, of course, a far different thing than stating that those groups have attempted to defraud the taxpayer, which is what you claimed.

If they claim tax exemption status based on a promise that they will not be a political campaign group, and then go out and campaign politically, would that not be fraudulent?

[Nordik]

My general position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

I am certainly in agreement with that. That is, of course, a far different thing than stating that those groups have attempted to defraud the taxpayer, which is what you claimed.

If they claim tax exemption status based on a promise that they will not be a political campaign group, and then go out and campaign politically, would that not be fraudulent?

They can campaign politically from what I understand as long as their primary function isn't that. As in they can do 49% political campaigning and 51% other work.

[Symmetry]

My general position is that groups that claimed to avoid tax deserve scrutiny.

I am certainly in agreement with that. That is, of course, a far different thing than stating that those groups have attempted to defraud the taxpayer, which is what you claimed.

If they claim tax exemption status based on a promise that they will not be a political campaign group, and then go out and campaign politically, would that not be fraudulent?

They can campaign politically from what I understand as long as their primary function isn't that. As in they can do 49% political campaigning and 51% other work.

If that's the margin they're working with, I'm still ok with them being checked.