Gyroscopic Investing

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday said that it inappropriately selected tea party political groups for special scrutiny in the 2012 campaign, an admission likely to fuel long-simmering suspicions among conservatives that the IRS has been singling them out for unfair treatment.

The IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, Lois Lerner, acknowledged at a conference on Friday the actions were wrong and apologized, according to the Associated Press. Lerner said groups with the words “tea party”? or “patriot”? in their applications for tax-exempt status faced additional screening.

In a statement, the IRS said the screening occurred by career employees in Cincinnati who, between 2010 and 2012, were seeking to centralize work related to tax exempt organizations. The agency said that while it made errors, they were not politically motivated.

Read the rest here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ml?hpid=z1

Part of me says that it's simply logical to give more scrutiny to a group of people whose origin is rooted in an event where there was an armed conflict over taxes, and openly challenges the legitimacy of the government's authority to collect taxes, and our President's legitimacy.

However, I don't think an organization's purpose or its more extreme members rhetoric should be a "scrutiny factor," much more out of principal than logic.

I don't see what's wrong with that, they are following in well established traditions [sarcasm alert]

moda0306 wrote: Part of me says that it's simply logical to give more scrutiny to a group of people whose origin is rooted in an event where there was an armed conflict over taxes, and openly challenges the legitimacy of the government's authority to collect taxes, and our President's legitimacy.

If security was the issue, wouldn't you expect additional attention from the police or FBI, not the IRS? Furthermore, is there any evidence of any actual security issues that arose with Tea Party protests? Or just the fear of it?

This could simply be personal bias, but my impression was that many OWS protests devolved into violence (several particularly violent ones in Oakland were covered extensively on the local news) and almost universally left the affected areas filthy, whereas Tea Party protests were more peaceful and clean.

There are admittedly some lunatics on the far right stockpiling guns and ammo. But I don't see an IRS audit of political groups as the way to deal with those kinds of problems. Sorry, I smell a rat.

I think Moda's point was that a organization based around protesting high taxes might be more prone to tax evasion.

RuralEngineer wrote: I think Moda's point was that a organization based around protesting high taxes might be more prone to tax evasion.

Yes.  That is it.  And like I said, I'm still aganst it because it limits free speech.  An audit is a PITA no matter what.

When they begin targeting organizations with the word "Patriot" in them though, they start to lose any justification. I think that the argument that they suspected conservative groups were more likely to be tax cheats because of opposition to higher taxes is an extreme reach at this point.

Pointedstick wrote: my impression was that many OWS protests devolved into violence (several particularly violent ones in Oakland were covered extensively on the local news) and almost universally left the affected areas filthy, whereas Tea Party protests were more peaceful and clean.

This is OT but a super important point.  OWS people fit in with the views of Obama and his bomb making friends e.g. Ayers (and the media) and the Tea party just wants less gov't and to be left alone.  And for their trouble, the Tea partiers are demonized.  And this is all SOP, codified e.g. Allisnky, and probably taught on campuses.

I thought that the additional scrutiny was of applications for tax exempt status, which doesn't have anything to do with audits.

It's still a dumb thing to do (or admit to doing), but it's a lot different than targeting entities you don't like for audit.

Benko wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: my impression was that many OWS protests devolved into violence (several particularly violent ones in Oakland were covered extensively on the local news) and almost universally left the affected areas filthy, whereas Tea Party protests were more peaceful and clean.

This is OT but a super important point.  OWS people fit in with the views of Obama and his bomb making friends e.g. Ayers (and the media) and the Tea party just wants less gov't and to be left alone.  And for their trouble, the Tea partiers are demonized.  And this is all SOP, codified e.g. Allisnky, and probably taught on campuses.

Let's be honest here, The Tea Party isn't just a bunch of true-blue libertarians that decided to finally get pissed off... these are hard-line conservatives that, when faced with economics being the only thing worth talking about, and (yes, let's admit) a black president overseeing significantly higher government benefits than a few years earlier, decided to put on their American flag shirts and Thomas Jefferson hats, and take to the streets to "keep the government's hands off their Medicare."  If there was a US government referrendum on a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, these folks would have been first in line to vote for it.  And I'm willing to bet they were very gung-ho on Iraq in 2003... so this whole "just want to be left alone" rhetoric seems a bit false to me.

I'm not saying OWS is much better.  It's surely very different in its stupidity. 

Moda,

Nice lumping

--noecons i.e. iraq 2003
--gay marriage and
--racism.

"I'm willing to bet they were very gung-ho on Iraq in 2003"
This is the problem with the left.  They are sure they know what is best for everyone and sure they know things they can't possibly know (and I'm not even sure are true).  Bush was stupid in many ways and the tea party is not monolithic.

Obama's problem is anticolonialism.  His race is irrelevant (really electing people on anything other than qualifications is stupid. Race and sex are irrelevant). 

Benko wrote: Moda,

Nice lumping

--noecons i.e. iraq 2003
--gay marriage and
--racism.

"I'm willing to bet they were very gung-ho on Iraq in 2003"
This is the problem with the left.  They are sure they know what is best for everyone and sure they know things they can't possibly know (and I'm not even sure are true).  Bush was stupid in many ways and the tea party is not monolithic.

Obama's problem is anticolonialism.  His race is irrelevant (really electing people on anything other than qualifications is stupid. Race and sex are irrelevant).

Benko,

My statement about the Tea Party has nothing to do with "knowing what's best" for others, and I'm not "sure I know" anything.  I said I'd be willing to bet. 

I know the Tea Party isn't a monolithic group where everyone agrees.  I was speaking on a bell curve of participants, and I'm sorry but anyone willing to involve themselves by choice in a group where the majority under the bell curve are idiots deserves to be lumped in with them... or at least doesn't deserve me to choose my words uber-carefully.  The OWS movement doesn't deserve any better.  If the guy in the tent next to me is shitting in the grass next to mine, you know what?  I'm going to pack up my Subaru and go home cuz these people are morons even if I agree with some of their points, and I don't deserve someone to look at the fact that I use toilets, don't pollute, and know Monetary Realism and go easy on the OWS movement.

While we're on the subject of whether the Tea Party, or any group for that matter, is inherantly monolithic, may I remind you that you've said the following:

"the Tea party just wants less gov't and to be left alone."

The tea party is not monolithic.

"This is the problem with the left.  They are sure they know what is best for everyone and sure they know things they can't possibly know."

The left is not monolithic.

"OWS people fit in with the views of Obama and his bomb making friends e.g. Ayers (and the media)"

OWS is not monolithic.

"And for their trouble, the Tea partiers are demonized."

By some, hailed by others.  A decent amount of in-between.  I know several libertarians that think they hijacked and tainted what could have been a chance for real libertarianism and not bible-thumpery in sheeps clothing.  Oh... if it wasn't clear, TP demonization is not monolithic.

So are we going to have conversations about organizations as a majority, or steer away from a stereotypical analysis?  It seemed the former was the type of discussion we were having.  But it's human nature to think of ourselves and people like us as individuals, and "others" as a monolithic group, or a collection of monolithic groups.  It's human nature.  However, if we ARE going to talk about opinions or behaviors of groups in "monolithic" tones, it probably helps to work with the majorities and operate under a bell-curve mentality. 

If that's the way we're going to talk, then OWS was a bunch of socialist, entitled hippies in tents practically shitting on top of each other, and the TP was a bunch of angry white men who had to put their Bible away for a second and focus on economics because nobody cares about anything else when unemployment is 10%... NOT libertarians for the most part.  I have several libertarian friends that are either annoyed or angry at the Tea Party (and several liberal friends that think OWS was a joke, BTW).

And like I said, I'm against the IRS going after a group because of quasi-rebellious rhetoric.  Some would prefer me to be outraged.  I am really rarely outraged about anything that government does, not even supporting slavery in the 1800's.  It's understandable to me for a group to see others as "others" and enslave them for their economic and social benefit.  I would like to think I'd be better than that, but I've never been faced with an opportunity that would bring greed or desperation out of me the way it probably was back then. I save my "outrage" for people I trust betraying me.  Everything else is just noise and I'll vote, call, and write my representatives, or shop at different stores if I can, but at the end of the day save your outrage for something you can control or should expect a certain level of trust from.

That may be hard for some of you to understand, but it has nothing to do with supporting Obama... I'm equally confused how some are in an outrage about a lapse of judgement that killed 4 people, but not acknowledge a lapse of judgement that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of Americans.

But that's for another thread already in existence.

"I'm equally confused how some are in an outrage about a lapse of judgement that killed 4 people, but not acknowledge a lapse of judgement that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of Americans."

You don't think there is any difference between:

being concerned about the performance of someone who might go on to be president and make the same mistakes again?  Not to mention the ongoing performance of the person in the oval office.

vs

Historical stupidities?
If you really mean just adknowledge, I think Bush did many many stupid things.

Simonjester wrote: if i heard correctly* the IRS going after the tea party is bushes fault ... he appointed somebody in the department that was responsible....

*according to Jay Carney

Benko,

I think it's perfectly reasonable to want some more answers on Benghazi.  I said in out other thread though that I really don't trust the analysis of anyone who's going ape shit right now.  I think it's political.  Not 100% sure, but when I see of my friends who is "most informed" about Benghazi, or the talking heads that seem to be, I get the feeling this is just grasping for straws and I lose interest real fast if I can't get a straight analysis.

moda0306 wrote: I know the Tea Party isn't a monolithic group where everyone agrees.  I was speaking on a bell curve of participants, and I'm sorry but anyone willing to involve themselves by choice in a group where the majority under the bell curve are idiots deserves to be lumped in with them... or at least doesn't deserve me to choose my words uber-carefully.

wow...

Isn't this the same train of thought that lead to slavery, genocide, and wars all through human history?

Would expect more from a member of this forum, instead of blanket stereotyping by association.

But, if what you say is so true, then you should be very fearful of good, honest, hardworking Americans.

May I respectfully ask everyone to take a deep breath before typing. Thanks.

Ad Orientem wrote: May I respectfully ask everyone to take a deep breath before typing. Thanks.

Did you show respect in your post or did you blatantly stereotype?

Bean wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: May I respectfully ask everyone to take a deep breath before typing. Thanks.

Did you show respect in your post or did you blatantly stereotype?

Umm where do you see broad stereotyping in my comments?

Let it out man, I am interested in how you feel about people who don't share your views.

Bean wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I know the Tea Party isn't a monolithic group where everyone agrees.  I was speaking on a bell curve of participants, and I'm sorry but anyone willing to involve themselves by choice in a group where the majority under the bell curve are idiots deserves to be lumped in with them... or at least doesn't deserve me to choose my words uber-carefully.

wow...

Isn't this the same train of thought that lead to slavery, genocide, and wars all through human history?

Would expect more from a member of this forum, instead of blanket stereotyping by association.

But, if what you say is so true, then you should be very fearful of good, honest, hardworking Americans.

This was probably poorly put by me.  I am not asking anyone to take responsibility for things they shouldn't.  I am simply saying that if there is a political group you have the freedom to join or leave, I'm not going to be super careful about my choice of words about the group just because there are a few good apples.

By no means do I think we should actively try to group people together into large groups.  I thought it was suggested in my post but sorry if it all sounded harsh.

I feel like we just man hugged this out.

"On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... port-says/

Clearly anyone educating citizens on the constitution and the bill of rights must be a dangerous nutcase.

Funny how the IRS targets these groups but completely ignores religious groups that blatantly violate the rule against tax-exempt organizations endorsing politicians or influencing legislation. 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11 ... e-irs?lite

http://www.fairnessradio.com/2011/09/29 ... m-the-irs/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/polic ... dates.html

The IRS actually targeted those who wanted to "make America a better place."
Isn't the IRS entitled to their opinion?