Orwellian USA

[Nordik]

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

I believe the wording is "primarily for the common good". So in other words as long as it is a majority, then that's fine.

Which makes it even more understandable that they'd like to see minutes, newsletters, etc. That to me is them checking to make sure that they're actually doing what they're meant to be doing.

[Woodruff]

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?

Not necessarily, no.

[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?

Not necessarily, no.

Would "potentially fraudulent pending a thorough investigation" work as a compromise?

[Woodruff]

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?

Not necessarily, no.

Would "potentially fraudulent pending a thorough investigation" work as a compromise?

Anything is "potentially fraudulent" if you're investigating it. That's what the point of an investigation IS. That seems like a useless statement.

Aside from that, these actions were not taken because of fraudulence, which is what you were implying.

[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?

Not necessarily, no.

Would "potentially fraudulent pending a thorough investigation" work as a compromise?

Anything is "potentially fraudulent" if you're investigating it. That's what the point of an investigation IS. That seems like a useless statement.

Aside from that, these actions were not taken because of fraudulence, which is what you were implying.

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

[Woodruff]

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?

Not necessarily, no.

Would "potentially fraudulent pending a thorough investigation" work as a compromise?

Anything is "potentially fraudulent" if you're investigating it. That's what the point of an investigation IS. That seems like a useless statement.

Aside from that, these actions were not taken because of fraudulence, which is what you were implying.

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

[Symmetry]

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Well, we'll never know for sure will we? Seeing as the people the groups were campaigning for and funding are saying that an audit is some form of tyranny.

[Woodruff]

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Well, we'll never know for sure will we? Seeing as the people the groups were campaigning for and funding are saying that an audit is some form of tyranny.

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

[Symmetry]

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Well, we'll never know for sure will we? Seeing as the people the groups were campaigning for and funding are saying that an audit is some form of tyranny.

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now. A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

[Woodruff]

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Well, we'll never know for sure will we? Seeing as the people the groups were campaigning for and funding are saying that an audit is some form of tyranny.

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now.

I said no such thing. I have never said any such thing. I really don't understand why you feel the need to create things that do not exist.

I don't believe we are talking past one another. I think you are simply reading what you want to read into my statements. The fact of the matter is that if there were deemed to have been fraudulent activity, the applications would not have been approved. Further, you have shown no indication at all that there has been fraudulent activity on the part of those organizations, other than what has apparently developed within your own mind.

And finally, I have not suggested to this point that these organizations should not be further watched over although, frankly, given that there has not been any fraudulent activity in the past, I will go ahead now and say that it doesn't seem reasonable to me that they do so, as that would likely be a waste of resources. Much like they would with any other tax-exempt organization, the IRS should rely on reports against these organizations to determine if they should be re-examined or not. It's not like liberal watchdog organizations won't be keeping an eye on them, after all.

A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

A kind of "learn how to fucking read" argument.

[Symmetry]

They were taken because there was concern over fraudulence. I don't agree at all with how they went about it, but let's not pretend this came out of either a) thin air, or b) some weird Machiavellian White House meeting that somehow ended with the President demanding that the IRS in Cincinnati audit some tea party groups.

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Well, we'll never know for sure will we? Seeing as the people the groups were campaigning for and funding are saying that an audit is some form of tyranny.

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now.

I said no such thing. I have never said any such thing. I really don't understand why you feel the need to create things that do not exist.

I don't believe we are talking past one another. I think you are simply reading what you want to read into my statements. The fact of the matter is that if there were deemed to have been fraudulent activity, the applications would not have been approved. Further, you have shown no indication at all that there has been fraudulent activity on the part of those organizations, other than what has apparently developed within your own mind.

And finally, I have not suggested to this point that these organizations should not be further watched over although, frankly, given that there has not been any fraudulent activity in the past, I will go ahead now and say that it doesn't seem reasonable to me that they do so, as that would likely be a waste of resources. Much like they would with any other tax-exempt organization, the IRS should rely on reports against these organizations to determine if they should be re-examined or not. It's not like liberal watchdog organizations won't be keeping an eye on them, after all.

A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

A kind of "learn how to fucking read" argument.

Again, you return to the application argument as your fallback. I don't understand why you think the IRS should not investigate potential tax fraud.

[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.

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.

Except that 501c4 by law do not have to reveal their donors (for starters). If something is specifically protected by law, why does the IRS have the power to demand the information anyway? Furthermore, why were the answers from a few conservative groups to these questions leaked to liberal organizations such as ProPublica prior to the group getting approved for 501c4 status? Such information is private until 501c4 status is approved.

[Night Strike]

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?

Not necessarily, no.

Would "potentially fraudulent pending a thorough investigation" work as a compromise?

For something to warrant a thorough investigation, one would need probable cause. A particular word or phrase in a name is not probable cause. That's like saying a person should be investigated simply because they have a certain skin color.

[Symmetry]

For something to warrant a thorough investigation, one would need probable cause. A particular word or phrase in a name is not probable cause. That's like saying a person should be investigated simply because they have a certain skin color.

Wow, what an odd way to try to deploy the race card.

[rishaed]

For something to warrant a thorough investigation, one would need probable cause. A particular word or phrase in a name is not probable cause. That's like saying a person should be investigated simply because they have a certain skin color.

Wow, what an odd way to try to deploy the race card.

Here, is this better for you? That's like saying a person should be investigated simply because they have the last name of Smith, Franklin, or James.

[Phatscotty]

The whole issue was first a problem when the government was going through the tax records of the NAACP and trying to prevent them from organizing. It's not playing the race card, it's recognizing history, as well as the reasons the government should not do this kind of thing.

[Woodruff]

For something to warrant a thorough investigation, one would need probable cause. A particular word or phrase in a name is not probable cause. That's like saying a person should be investigated simply because they have a certain skin color.

Wow, what an odd way to try to deploy the race card.

He's not wrong.

[Woodruff]

You explicitly stated that these groups "were trying to defraud the taxpayer", a statement which does not at all appear to be true. That is my issue here. There does not at all appear to have been any of these groups trying to defraud the taxpayer.

Well, we'll never know for sure will we? Seeing as the people the groups were campaigning for and funding are saying that an audit is some form of tyranny.

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now.

I said no such thing. I have never said any such thing. I really don't understand why you feel the need to create things that do not exist.

I don't believe we are talking past one another. I think you are simply reading what you want to read into my statements. The fact of the matter is that if there were deemed to have been fraudulent activity, the applications would not have been approved. Further, you have shown no indication at all that there has been fraudulent activity on the part of those organizations, other than what has apparently developed within your own mind.

And finally, I have not suggested to this point that these organizations should not be further watched over although, frankly, given that there has not been any fraudulent activity in the past, I will go ahead now and say that it doesn't seem reasonable to me that they do so, as that would likely be a waste of resources. Much like they would with any other tax-exempt organization, the IRS should rely on reports against these organizations to determine if they should be re-examined or not. It's not like liberal watchdog organizations won't be keeping an eye on them, after all.

A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

A kind of "learn how to fucking read" argument.

Again, you return to the application argument as your fallback. I don't understand why you think the IRS should not investigate potential tax fraud.

So you didn't want to take my suggestion that you learn how to fucking read? Honestly, it seems like you are being intentionally obtuse. Trying for a Phatscotty Forum Award or something?

[Woodruff]

The whole issue was first a problem when the government was going through the tax records of the NAACP and trying to prevent them from organizing. It's not playing the race card, it's recognizing history, as well as the reasons the government should not do this kind of thing.

It's funny how you recognize the similarity to the Civil Rights Movement when it's one of your causes, as opposed to a group who you don't like. Fascinating, that.

[Phatscotty]

timeline of the IRS scandal

[Phatscotty]

I look forward to the investigation, and being outta town, I haven't updated myself sufficiently---BUT I am not at all enthused about an investigation

Neither am I. If it was some elaborate plan, they likely wont find much. If it was some odd fluke, they wont find much.

in (1) ending this corruption--which it won't since politicians will stay have the Road open for their abuse---I mean selfless policymaking, and (2) the IRS won't go bankrupt, so they have no need to change.

There is no stopping or guiding an entity that has no consequences.

It's like committing an egregious crime, having someone else pay for it, and then you get to resume whatever you were suppose to be doing. I really don't have much faith in the political process in resolving these kinds of fundamental issues.

Same as my statement above and I highly agree with you. There is nothing we can do about it. We as a people should not have a governing force that we have no control over. That is ridiculous and against everything "American".

EDIT: scrolled through the last 8 pages or so; most likely didn't miss anything important. ?????. PROFIT.

That happens quite often.

A window of opportunity for reform is a window of opportunity for reform, a chance to move the goal post and impact the future, to try to affect the direction. The best way to shrink government is to give it less money. I understand you guyses lack of faith, but I take just a little bit of comfort knowing that the number of people who would help us achieve real tax reform are growing, and not shrinking.



The civil rights movement of our time

[Woodruff]

The civil rights movement of our time

The hell it is. It's funny how you want to use the similarity to the Civil Rights Movement when it's one of your causes, as opposed to a group who you don't like. Fascinating, that.

This isn't even remotely as appropriate of a comparison to the Civil Rights Movement as the issue of homosexual marriage is. Your intentional dishonesty and willingness to bullshit is ridiculous.

[Symmetry]

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now.

I said no such thing. I have never said any such thing. I really don't understand why you feel the need to create things that do not exist.

I don't believe we are talking past one another. I think you are simply reading what you want to read into my statements. The fact of the matter is that if there were deemed to have been fraudulent activity, the applications would not have been approved.

A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

A kind of "learn how to fucking read" argument.

Again, you return to the application argument as your fallback. I don't understand why you think the IRS should not investigate potential tax fraud.

So you didn't want to take my suggestion that you learn how to fucking read? Honestly, it seems like you are being intentionally obtuse. Trying for a Phatscotty Forum Award or something?

It was tempted to learn how to read, but alas, I assumed you being fatuous.

[Woodruff]

As we've already established, we DO know pretty much "for sure", since the applications were approved (with the exception of one liberal organization).

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now.

I said no such thing. I have never said any such thing. I really don't understand why you feel the need to create things that do not exist.

I don't believe we are talking past one another. I think you are simply reading what you want to read into my statements. The fact of the matter is that if there were deemed to have been fraudulent activity, the applications would not have been approved.

A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

A kind of "learn how to fucking read" argument.

Again, you return to the application argument as your fallback. I don't understand why you think the IRS should not investigate potential tax fraud.

So you didn't want to take my suggestion that you learn how to fucking read? Honestly, it seems like you are being intentionally obtuse. Trying for a Phatscotty Forum Award or something?

It was tempted to learn how to read, but alas, I assumed you being fatuous.

Learn how to write while you're at it.

[Symmetry]

We seem to be talking past one another. You've gone back to the idea that if they were approved in the first place then they shouldn't be under scrutiny now.

I said no such thing. I have never said any such thing. I really don't understand why you feel the need to create things that do not exist.

I don't believe we are talking past one another. I think you are simply reading what you want to read into my statements. The fact of the matter is that if there were deemed to have been fraudulent activity, the applications would not have been approved.

A kind of "It's ok to drink and drive if you got your licence while sober." argument.

A kind of "learn how to fucking read" argument.

Again, you return to the application argument as your fallback. I don't understand why you think the IRS should not investigate potential tax fraud.

So you didn't want to take my suggestion that you learn how to fucking read? Honestly, it seems like you are being intentionally obtuse. Trying for a Phatscotty Forum Award or something?

It was tempted to learn how to read, but alas, I assumed you being fatuous.

Learn how to write while you're at I.

Fixed!