Orwellian USA

[Juan_Bottom]

Why did the "looking into" only apply to conservative groups? Why did a group led by an Obama family member that had already broken the law get fast-tracked, retroactive approval while these other groups were being blanketedly delayed? Also, why was the IRS asking questions that were completely impossible to comply with such as reporting every speech ever made to the group, every Facebook wall post made by any member on the group page, and of course donor lists?

By the way, why did Obama learn about this on TV? As Seth Myers stated on SNL this weekend, why is this government so incompetent that the only way they learn information is from the same TV that the rest of us learn from? Are his advisers too incompetent to advise?

It didn't. The only group to fail this check was actually a Liberal Charity organization of some kind.
I don't know, how does the fast-track process work? Can only the president do that, or wha?

This was a lowest-level management program at a specific department of the IRS. Does the President of Costco know what the assistant night-shift manager does at the CostCo in Dairy? No of course he doesn't. It's not Obama's job to micromanage everything in the government. No leader can do that and still be called a leader.

Amirite America?

Now she doesn't want to talk about it?

IRS official Lois Lerner will invoke her constitutional right to not answer questions on Wednesday at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, her lawyer told the panel in a letter

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130522/DA6E7MA81.html

I guess all their actions weren't as legal as they keep claiming they were.

No intelligent person will ever talk to the police if they don't have to.
We have the largest prison population in the world.

[Woodruff]

No intelligent person will ever talk to the police if they don't have to.
We have the largest prison population in the world.

Unfortunately, this really is the truth.

[Night Strike]

Why did the "looking into" only apply to conservative groups? Why did a group led by an Obama family member that had already broken the law get fast-tracked, retroactive approval while these other groups were being blanketedly delayed? Also, why was the IRS asking questions that were completely impossible to comply with such as reporting every speech ever made to the group, every Facebook wall post made by any member on the group page, and of course donor lists?

By the way, why did Obama learn about this on TV? As Seth Myers stated on SNL this weekend, why is this government so incompetent that the only way they learn information is from the same TV that the rest of us learn from? Are his advisers too incompetent to advise?

It didn't. The only group to fail this check was actually a Liberal Charity organization of some kind.
I don't know, how does the fast-track process work? Can only the president do that, or wha?

This was a lowest-level management program at a specific department of the IRS. Does the President of Costco know what the assistant night-shift manager does at the CostCo in Dairy? No of course he doesn't. It's not Obama's job to micromanage everything in the government. No leader can do that and still be called a leader.

So having your applications held up for 18-27 months (opposed to 3-6 months) is irrelevant if your application is approved? The IRS has the authority to demand every comment any member or donor has ever made as long as the application is still approved? The government has the ability to intimidate and harass anyone it wants as long as they let the people go in the end?

And if it was only low-level people doing these actions, why did everyone else in the White House know except for the president? Do you really believe that either Obama didn't know or that it was limited to only low-level people? In fact, why do these low-level people keep coming out and stating that it's impossible for them to take such actions without direct approval from higher ups?

Why do you keep covering for this government?

[Woodruff]

In fact, why do these low-level people keep coming out and stating that it's impossible for them to take such actions without direct approval from higher ups?

I'm not sure why you keep continuing with this train of thought, when it has been effectively derailed. This "direct approval from higher-ups" don't appear to have been anywhere near the executive level of the IRS, never mind the nation.

Why do you keep covering for this government?

Why do you keep insisting that things that are unlikely are certain?

[Juan_Bottom]

The series of events

1) Low level employees were directed by upper management through lower management to scrutinize groups with political sounding names. The goal was too see if any of them used their tax-free status improperly to influence politics. Upper management did not tell the low level employees how to accomplish this, so they made a list of terms to use to stop-check forms.

The process they chose made sense. They used political names/words/phrases as their terms to stop check forms, names like "Patriot" and "Tea Party." If you were one of those employees, you might have done the same thing.

2) When upper management found out about the unethical program that was being used, they ordered it stopped. Then they let Kathryn Ruemmler know what happened. Kathryn Ruemmler is Obama's legal adviser; the White House's attorney. She let her boss know at the White House, but also decided that Obama did not need to be notified.
This makes sense, because she is a 5-star attorney. Telling Obama would only have implicate him, and what kind of stupid attorney would implicate their own client in a crime? I also doubt that she would have been aware of how serious a situation this could be, given that it didn't involve anyone important in the Government. Even Jack Lew didn't know anything about it.

Nobody is saying that this isn't serious. We're saying that Obama didn't do it, because there is 0 evidence that he did do it, and that it's not even as serious of a situation as you want it to be. Under-trained employees made a legal mistake. In that situation, I could see myself making the same mistake.

[Nordik]

No intelligent person will ever talk to the police if they don't have to.
We have the largest prison population in the world.

Unfortunately, this really is the truth.

Indeed. It is quite scary that you have over 10% of your people behind bars. And depending on the race much, much higher.

[kentington]

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.

[patches70]

No intelligent person will ever talk to the police if they don't have to.
We have the largest prison population in the world.

Unfortunately, this really is the truth.

Indeed. It is quite scary that you have over 10% of your people behind bars. And depending on the race much, much higher.

Hahaha! You think there are some 33 million US citizens in prison?
Sorry, that's not correct, it's more like 1%, not 10%.
Just sayin' is all. Exaggeration isn't helpful.

[Woodruff]

No intelligent person will ever talk to the police if they don't have to.
We have the largest prison population in the world.

Unfortunately, this really is the truth.

Indeed. It is quite scary that you have over 10% of your people behind bars. And depending on the race much, much higher.

10%? Egads, it's not 10%. I would guess it's more like .005% to .010%...somewhere in that range.

But that is still an enormous number, further pushed by the for-profit prison system here in the U.S.

EDIT: Err...make that .5% to 1%. I don't do math so gooder anymore.

[Juan_Bottom]

It's off topic, but we have 1 person in prison for every 100 people out of prison. That's more than Stalin's Gulags. Some states have significantly higher rates.

List of U.S. states by incarceration rate

[Nordik]

It's off topic, but we have 1 person in prison for every 100 people out of prison. That's more than Stalin's Gulags. Some states have significantly higher rates.

List of U.S. states by incarceration rate

/sarcasm on

Oh I apologise. It is only for minorities (aka blacks) that it is 10%.

/sarcasm off

EDIT:

[ooge]

http://crooksandliars.com/dave-johnson/ ... servatives

[Nobunaga]

I'm not sure why you keep continuing with this train of thought, when it has been effectively derailed. This "direct approval from higher-ups" don't appear to have been anywhere near the executive level of the IRS, never mind the nation.

Read this (not direct to you, Woody, but this was a good spot to tag it).

http://www.fox19.com/story/22380127/rea ... rs-scandal

Goes quite a bit beyond the Cincinnati office, apparently. The linked article explains IRS procedure should an application not be fully processed within a set amount of time (gets handed up the line... and up from there).

[Night Strike]

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).

[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.

[Woodruff]

I'm not sure why you keep continuing with this train of thought, when it has been effectively derailed. This "direct approval from higher-ups" don't appear to have been anywhere near the executive level of the IRS, never mind the nation.

Read this (not direct to you, Woody, but this was a good spot to tag it).

http://www.fox19.com/story/22380127/rea ... rs-scandal

Goes quite a bit beyond the Cincinnati office, apparently. The linked article explains IRS procedure should an application not be fully processed within a set amount of time (gets handed up the line... and up from there).

Good article. But it still doesn't show that conservative organizations were targeted any more than any others, nor does it show that President Obama was involved.

[Night Strike]

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?

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.

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

[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.

[Night Strike]

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).

[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.

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?

[Night Strike]

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.

[Nordik]

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.

[Night Strike]

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.

[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.

[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.

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've accepted that many were rejected in their attempts to defraud. We both see the system as flawed. Is there a middle ground here?