Moderator: Global Moderator
But wouldn't we then all be speaking with British accents?edsanville wrote: This story reminds me of one of Harry Browne's over-arching themes in "How I Found Freedom:"
If the Tea Partiers had read Harry Browne, they wouldn't be under scrutiny to begin with.Don’t be awed by the government.
Don’t confront it directly.
Don’t organize.
Like Canada?Reub wrote:But wouldn't we then all be speaking with British accents?edsanville wrote: This story reminds me of one of Harry Browne's over-arching themes in "How I Found Freedom:"
If the Tea Partiers had read Harry Browne, they wouldn't be under scrutiny to begin with.Don’t be awed by the government.
Don’t confront it directly.
Don’t organize.
My personal preference for getting the money out of politics would not be to overturn the Citizens United decision but to repeal the 16th amendment.Pointedstick wrote: The idea that it's even possible to "minimize money in politics"--as Pelosi puts it--is something that I find laughable. Pelosi herself is a multi-millionaire married to the head of a venture capital and real estate company. Money and politics are joined at the hip. Always have been, always will be.
Sounds like these 501(C)'s were really asking for it, what with there skimpy "I love the Constitution" t-shirts.notsheigetz wrote: I think this article really goes to the heart of this scandal....
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/30021 ... ens-united
If you are a libertarian or a conservative you might not be aware of the degree of outrage among progressives about the Citizens United Supreme court decision. They see it as a usurpation of the democratic process by an activist Supreme Court kind of like conservatives feel about Roe v Wade. If you recall, Obama even openly rebuked the Supreme Court for this decision in a state of the union speech which might very well have been the green light to political appointees in the IRS to do what they have done.
+ infinitynotsheigetz wrote:My personal preference for getting the money out of politics would not be to overturn the Citizens United decision but to repeal the 16th amendment.Pointedstick wrote: The idea that it's even possible to "minimize money in politics"--as Pelosi puts it--is something that I find laughable. Pelosi herself is a multi-millionaire married to the head of a venture capital and real estate company. Money and politics are joined at the hip. Always have been, always will be.
This may be the first smart thing she's done. But I think she should be fired. To be clear I am a HUGE fan of civil liberties including the much maligned 5th amendment. But no one should plead the Fifth if their employer asks them "are you a crook?" and expect to keep their job. The right against self incrimination is sacred, in a court of law. Not in the workplace. Worse she's a senior official in the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country.Reub wrote: "Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment:
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5565.story
Pleading the Fifth when your employer asks you a question is about as stupid as a teenager pleading the Fifth when his parents ask him something.Ad Orientem wrote:This may be the first smart thing she's done. But I think she should be fired. To be clear I am a HUGE fan of civil liberties including the much maligned 5th amendment. But no one should plead the Fifth if their employer asks them "are you a crook?" and expect to keep their job. The right against self incrimination is sacred, in a court of law. Not in the workplace. Worse she's a senior official in the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country.Reub wrote: "Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment:
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5565.story
She should be sacked post haste. And we need an independent council appointed to investigate this mess.
Is it possible that she sees Obama as her employer and that she is pleasing him?MediumTex wrote:Pleading the Fifth when your employer asks you a question is about as stupid as a teenager pleading the Fifth when his parents ask him something.Ad Orientem wrote:This may be the first smart thing she's done. But I think she should be fired. To be clear I am a HUGE fan of civil liberties including the much maligned 5th amendment. But no one should plead the Fifth if their employer asks them "are you a crook?" and expect to keep their job. The right against self incrimination is sacred, in a court of law. Not in the workplace. Worse she's a senior official in the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country.Reub wrote: "Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment:
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5565.story
She should be sacked post haste. And we need an independent council appointed to investigate this mess.
I'm afraid I agree. I applaud her asserting her rights, but for someone at the IRS to do that when the rest of can't take the 5th when filling out our tax returns or getting audited just smacks of special pleading. Sorry Lois: What's good for the gander is good for the goose in this case.Ad Orientem wrote:This may be the first smart thing she's done. But I think she should be fired. To be clear I am a HUGE fan of civil liberties including the much maligned 5th amendment. But no one should plead the Fifth if their employer asks them "are you a crook?" and expect to keep their job. The right against self incrimination is sacred, in a court of law. Not in the workplace. Worse she's a senior official in the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country.Reub wrote: "Top IRS official will invoke 5th Amendment:
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening — or why she didn’t disclose it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor III. Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5565.story
She should be sacked post haste. And we need an independent council appointed to investigate this mess.
The White House met with the head of the IRS over 150 times in the last 4.5 years. Bush met with the IRS once in 8.rocketdog wrote: The plot thickens...
IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member
So we go from "something fishy is happening" (with which I'd agree), to:clacy wrote:The White House met with the head of the IRS over 150 times in the last 4.5 years. Bush met with the IRS once in 8.rocketdog wrote: The plot thickens...
IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member
Something fishy is happening and even though it probably won't be proven, it goes very high up the food chain.
Obama has proven to be a typical Chicago thug. He would fit right in as a political leader in most 3rd world countries.
He was using the IRS and Justice Dept to bully and intimidate groups and media members that weren't supportive of his agenda.
Pretty chilling stuff if you ask me.
Chicago is where Obama cut his political teeth. You may not fully understand how truly rotten Chicago is, politically. I lived in Illinois for many years and it's something fierce. The problem with an environment like that is that it can warp even good people. Obama does not strike me as a bad man, but learning the political trade in an environment where everyone is corrupt, taking bribes, giving bribes, shaking down businesses, committing voter fraud, or overtly threatening political enemies is something that has an impact on you whether you want it to or not.moda0306 wrote: So we go from "something fishy is happening" (with which I'd agree), to:
"Obama has proven to be a typical Chicago thug. He would fit right in as a political leader in most 3rd world countries."
First off, what's with the constant disparaging of Chicago? I know a disproportionately high amount of corruption has happened there, but it seems a little much to use the term "Chicago thug" every time Obama seems to potentially have done something wrong.
As usual, MT puts it how I meant to.MediumTex wrote: While I certainly think that this whole thing smells like day-old ass, if you are talking about tea party political action groups, I have no idea why any of those organizations would be applying for tax exempt status in the first place.
If you look at the bases for tax exempt status under section 501 of the Code, I can't imagine which category these groups were supposed to fit into.
Any organization that bills itself as an "educational" organization but raises money that is used for coordinated issue ads in political campaigns should expect to have a lot of scrutiny of its application for tax exempt status.
Since many people seem to think that the IRS was targeting these groups for audit rather than scrutiny of their application for tax exempt status, I don't think that explaining the legitimate reasons for additional scrutiny is going to make any sense to a lot of people.
If the administration wanted to harass these groups, this is actually a pretty pathetic way to do it. An application for tax exempt status usually takes many months (if not years) to get approved, and typically involves all sorts of scrutiny. Adding a few months to this process in some cases wouldn't likely even be something that many groups would even notice.
If it were one of my clients (and I usually have a couple of these types of applications going all of the time), I would just tell them that the IRS tends to move like a drunk glacier on these things and that it just takes a long time.
Sorry, but we can't target only one-half of the political groups. This debate isn't about the legitimacy of these 501 organizations and their claims on tax-exemption.MediumTex wrote: While I certainly think that this whole thing smells like day-old ass, if you are talking about tea party political action groups, I have no idea why any of those organizations would be applying for tax exempt status in the first place.
If you look at the bases for tax exempt status under section 501 of the Code, I can't imagine which category these groups were supposed to fit into.
Any organization that bills itself as an "educational" organization but raises money that is used for coordinated issue ads in political campaigns should expect to have a lot of scrutiny of its application for tax exempt status.
Since many people seem to think that the IRS was targeting these groups for audit rather than scrutiny of their application for tax exempt status, I don't think that explaining the legitimate reasons for additional scrutiny is going to make any sense to a lot of people.
If the administration wanted to harass these groups, this is actually a pretty pathetic way to do it. An application for tax exempt status usually takes many months (if not years) to get approved, and typically involves all sorts of scrutiny. Adding a few months to this process in some cases wouldn't likely even be something that many groups would even notice.
If it were one of my clients (and I usually have a couple of these types of applications going all of the time), I would just tell them that the IRS tends to move like a drunk glacier on these things and that it just takes a long time.
Try getting a construction permit in Chicago if you're a non-union contractor..... It DOESN'T happen. In fact, regardless of your union affiliation or lack there of, you need to "know" someone to get such permits. And when I say "know someone", what I really mean is you have to pay someone.moda0306 wrote:So we go from "something fishy is happening" (with which I'd agree), to:clacy wrote:The White House met with the head of the IRS over 150 times in the last 4.5 years. Bush met with the IRS once in 8.rocketdog wrote: The plot thickens...
IRS’s Shulman had more public White House visits than any Cabinet member
Something fishy is happening and even though it probably won't be proven, it goes very high up the food chain.
Obama has proven to be a typical Chicago thug. He would fit right in as a political leader in most 3rd world countries.
He was using the IRS and Justice Dept to bully and intimidate groups and media members that weren't supportive of his agenda.
Pretty chilling stuff if you ask me.
"Obama has proven to be a typical Chicago thug. He would fit right in as a political leader in most 3rd world countries."
First off, what's with the constant disparaging of Chicago? I know a disproportionately high amount of corruption has happened there, but it seems a little much to use the term "Chicago thug" every time Obama seems to potentially have done something wrong.
It's very likely this goes high up. If the President asked the IRS to specifically focus on conservative groups, harsh judgment should be sent his way. However, naturally, politically-charged groups trying to file for 501c4 status are red meat, and rightfully so (if you look at the political requirements of such organizations). More-so for not having to show their donors than tax-free status, IMO.
I am curious to see a list of "liberal" groups within the 501c4 status, because it'd be interesting to point out the names/purposes of those that weren't targeted while the Tea Party was. They should absolutely pick this thing apart and find out how far it went and see to it that the appropriate people are fired, but I don't see THAT much blood in the water yet to be referencing 3rd world countries. This is bureaucrats and their political opinions causing systemic biases. This has existed in government and especially the military (and police) for centuries.
So you think paying attention to Obama and the Administration using the IRS and Justice Department to ILLEGALLY target and wire tap conservative groups and conservative media outlets is "silly"?TennPaGa wrote:+1MediumTex wrote: While I certainly think that this whole thing smells like day-old ass, if you are talking about tea party political action groups, I have no idea why any of those organizations would be applying for tax exempt status in the first place.
If you look at the bases for tax exempt status under section 501 of the Code, I can't imagine which category these groups were supposed to fit into.
Any organization that bills itself as an "educational" organization but raises money that is used for coordinated issue ads in political campaigns should expect to have a lot of scrutiny of its application for tax exempt status.
Since many people seem to think that the IRS was targeting these groups for audit rather than scrutiny of their application for tax exempt status, I don't think that explaining the legitimate reasons for additional scrutiny is going to make any sense to a lot of people.
If the administration wanted to harass these groups, this is actually a pretty pathetic way to do it. An application for tax exempt status usually takes many months (if not years) to get approved, and typically involves all sorts of scrutiny. Adding a few months to this process in some cases wouldn't likely even be something that many groups would even notice.
If it were one of my clients (and I usually have a couple of these types of applications going all of the time), I would just tell them that the IRS tends to move like a drunk glacier on these things and that it just takes a long time.
The plot lines of Three's Company were generally pretty silly, but that didn't keep it from being a highly rated show.
I'm not saying that it's okay to target one-half of political groups. What I'm saying is that political groups do not typically seek tax exempt status at all, and thus it surprises me that ANY group of this type (no matter its political orientation) would seek tax exempt status.clacy wrote:Sorry, but we can't target only one-half of the political groups. This debate isn't about the legitimacy of these 501 organizations and their claims on tax-exemption.MediumTex wrote: While I certainly think that this whole thing smells like day-old ass, if you are talking about tea party political action groups, I have no idea why any of those organizations would be applying for tax exempt status in the first place.
If you look at the bases for tax exempt status under section 501 of the Code, I can't imagine which category these groups were supposed to fit into.
Any organization that bills itself as an "educational" organization but raises money that is used for coordinated issue ads in political campaigns should expect to have a lot of scrutiny of its application for tax exempt status.
Since many people seem to think that the IRS was targeting these groups for audit rather than scrutiny of their application for tax exempt status, I don't think that explaining the legitimate reasons for additional scrutiny is going to make any sense to a lot of people.
If the administration wanted to harass these groups, this is actually a pretty pathetic way to do it. An application for tax exempt status usually takes many months (if not years) to get approved, and typically involves all sorts of scrutiny. Adding a few months to this process in some cases wouldn't likely even be something that many groups would even notice.
If it were one of my clients (and I usually have a couple of these types of applications going all of the time), I would just tell them that the IRS tends to move like a drunk glacier on these things and that it just takes a long time.
