Link
The Autumn Wind
Personally, what's worse is that all of them still received tax-exempt status as "social welfare" groups, which is fucking laughable.
IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party scandal Now Runs ObamaCare Office.
- Thread starter commedieu
- Start date
- Status
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
It does, however, affect your inclination to apply as a non-profit for tax exemption.
You don't know, and I don't know. I said it was a gut feeling, something stupid could have been done, and men aren't above that. The chances are low, but again, just a vibe.
Would be the dumbest move in the history of history though. To influence this some how. And yea, a little left field but...(see tag)
The IG's report of the investigation into this came out, like, a week ago. It's pretty straightforward. The criterion for more carefully investigating a group were set at the ground level, not at the management level, and when the management found out they changed them, and then the ground troops changed them back in 2012, and then the management changed them AGAIN, started investigating, and changed a bunch of procedures.
I'm really not sure how Obama could possibly have been involved unless he flew to Cincinnati and personally told the specialists there to screw with people. But, just in case, the IG determined that the actions weren't motivated by Democratic or White House action, so.
I'm honestly not clear* on why we're even discussing this any more, except to talk about whether (510)(c)(4) organization status is being awarded way too easily anyway and maybe we should change the rules there.
* Yes I am, it's because people don't pay attention to little details like formal investigations and reports as to what actually happened when Fox News is so much more fair and balanced.
I'm still trying to understand why this even a scandal. Nobody's rights were denied. They all received tax exempt status. They were still able to operate while waiting for this status.
Now, I don't think its right to target specific groups even if all you're doing is making something minor, like delaying the processing of tax exempt status, a little bit of a headache for them. Hell I don't see any advantages in doing that for the IRS and certainly not for Obama. I don't see the point.
Now, I don't think its right to target specific groups even if all you're doing is making something minor, like delaying the processing of tax exempt status, a little bit of a headache for them. Hell I don't see any advantages in doing that for the IRS and certainly not for Obama. I don't see the point.
Karma Kramer
Banned
If he knew about this during the campaign then that could be enough? He just said last week that the first time he heard about it was from the media.
Okay well by that logic, it's also a liberal belief that the rich should pay for everyone else, so a non-rich liberal group could falsely claim tax exemption out of that belief.
Not an impeachable offense. Clinton was only impeached for perjury under oath. Completely different.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Isn't what the IRS did not even illegal?
Link
The Autumn Wind
Sounds more like a conservative belief of a liberal belief.
Doubt it, since I'm pretty liberal. I criticize the Democrats from the left of them.
Vicetrailia
Banned
That's what conservatives project that liberals believe. More interested in judging rather than understanding and all that.
Okay well then what empty vessell described is what liberals project conservatives to believe. You can't have it both ways.
Karma Kramer
Banned
It's impossible to criticize Obama and be a liberal!
You are just another one of those communis... I mean tea baggers!
You are just another one of those communis... I mean tea baggers!
Dude Abides
Banned
No, actually, conservatives do in fact believe that money is speech and corporations have free speech rights. In fact, that is the law of the land.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's a scandal, it just sucks. It's like Ned Flanders holding hands with some other woman than his wife.
Hard to get excited.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Karma Kramer
Banned
I FUCKING KNEW IT.
I knew I can't trust Flanders, that bastard is too virtuous to be real.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
If you're going to set up strawmen, at least set them up correctly. You should have referred to a belief that "money = speech," not that "speech = money." In any event, whether the belief that most expenditures on political speech are protected by the First Amendment is a "conservative" one or not, it's also the law. So your accusation boils down to one in which an accurate understanding of campaign finance laws increases the probability of tax fraud.
Which is stupid.
No harm, no foul? (That article concerns the 2012 elections, but since groups with "Tea Party," "Patriot," or "9/12" weren't being approved as 501(c)(4)'s leading up to and during the 2010 elections, I think it's good enough.)
First, TIGTA's investigation was limited in scope. Their analysis of whether outside forces influenced the use of the inappropriate criteria was limited to asking the individuals directly involved whether any outside forces had influenced the criteria. Second, TIGTA is still a part of the Treasury Dept., and so comes under the auspices (and influence) of the president. An independent investigation is certainly in order, given those two facts--and it doesn't matter whether TIGTA actually was influenced by the president or any other higher member of the executive branch; what's relevant is the potential for influence.
It depends on what you mean by "illegal." The Dept. of Justice is currently investigating whether criminal charges should be brought in this case. In addition, the IRS violated some of its own policies, and asked for information it could not legitimately ask for, in doing what it did. Finally, because it delayed some of the applications so much, it opened itself up to lawsuits for declaratory judgment by the affected organizations.
I dunno... its weird on the one hand I'm a little anxious about the whole scandal. If you had to wear hats of shame, or something, I'd imagine that due to all the corruption, finger pointing, and firings, the person truly responsible would feel like they were wearing nothing at all.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
secession soon
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Right, I mean, what exactly happened? Were Tea Party groups put on a "do not allow" list? No they were listed for additional scrutiny. Is this bad? Yes, it is bad. Is it big? No, I don't feel its big.
During the campaign is when the IRS had stopped it for the second time, instituted special procedures to expedite the uncleared applications, and started an investigation. What, exactly, did you want done?
I am, admittedly, not completely convinced that nobody would've told the White House, but I would probably have been pretty skeptical that the president didn't know about Iran-contra too, and that worked out all right.
Karma Kramer
Banned
The weird part about this scandal and the other two is the lack of foresight on part of the Obama administration for believing they could tap AP's phones, cover-up the Benghazi video lie, and cover-up their knowledge of these IRS practices (hypothetically). If they would have just said the Benghazi was an Al Qaeda attack on the 12th of September (as they knew this at the time), it would have probably done nothing to his chances imo. This scandal is also odd because I don't think it would have mattered much in the polls if he had learned about it in the Summer and then dealt with it then.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Wait, people still think this is what happened? I thought we were past this.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
(1) The DOJ didn't tap the AP's phones. They obtained phone records (presumably, like the kind that come with phone bills at the end of the month).
(2) Can we please not turn this into another Benghazi thread?
(3) You can bet that if this had been revealed before the election, it would have encouraged more Tea Party types and conservatives to get out and vote against Obama, however little they liked Romney.
Black Mamba
Member
It's nice to want things.
Half and half
Member
So much to hit Obama over but conservatives go with what the media spoon feeds them...
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
With which part of that statement do you disagree?
All they can hit him on is what the media lets them. if they go for something else ABC,NBC,CBS etc tune it out
I wish I COULD bet this. I mean, bet the other side of this, obviously. I missed my chance to bet on it the first time around and I regret not having that new car.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Do you mean that if the IRS scandal had been made known before the election, it would have resulted in fewer Tea Party types and conservatives voting against Obama? Why do you think so?
Karma Kramer
Banned
lol damn.... I fear I have just given the opposition a 3rd reason to call me a tea bagger.
Can I plead not guilty on behalf of little sleep? I pulled an all nighter last night (note my posting history) and should probably stop posting for now as my coherence is terrible atm.
Black Mamba
Member
The part about there being tea party and conservative votes left at home and that this would have changed anything.
Romney got all the conservative and tea party votes he could have gotten.
No, he means it would have changed nothing regarding Romney's ability to get conservatives and tea party votes.
No, of course not. I think it would have made no meaningful difference among that demographic. As Black Mamba said, Tea Partiers and movement conservatives turned out at pretty much the same rabid rates they did for George W. and McCain. There just weren't enough of them.
Link
The Autumn Wind
There was enough bile and hatred against Obama from the far right already. Something like this wouldn't have made any significant impact to the election.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
A cursory Google search shows that you may be right, but I don't have time to look into it further. So I'll just assume you three are correct for now.
EDIT: Though, could you all provide sources that compare Tea Party/conservative voter turnout between 2008/10 and 2012?
eBay Huckster
Member
Black Mamba
Member
There was no Tea Party in 2008 and midterm elections are always smaller than Presidential ones by a huge margin, so there is nothing to compare.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Come on now, I left you several options in that post and you chose to go with the one that didn't make sense. How about this: conservative turnout in 2004, 2008, and 2012?
EDIT: Also, on what basis did you claim that Romney got all the conservative and tea party votes that he could have gotten? Did as many (or more) TP folks show up in 2012 as in 2010?
Black Mamba
Member
Uh, as a percentage those will decline no matter what because young people are replacing old people who are dying (and young people are less conservative than old people).
So it won't prove anything.
If you think tea party people stayed home on election night in states that mattered (places like Cali are irrelevant), I don't know what to tell you.
Why would somebody be a part of the tea party, the movement against Obama, and then not vote against Obama???
There will always be more of everything in a presidential election. Do you realize how few people voted in 2010?
edit: If conservatives actually think they lost the election because they didn't turn out enough conservatives, then lol @ that delusion. Can't draw blood from a stone. You've sapped that well dry, there just ain't enough of them in existence, anymore.
Deified Data
Banned
I'm willing to accept a certain level of deniability higher up in the food chain, but I really can't understand why this official is being allowed to go unscathed. I don't think this is the Watergate-tier scandal that some make it out to be, but it's definitely a mark against said official's professionalism. Ultimately I dislike that she's being allowed to continue work in the IRS and fuel the rumor-mongers (not that they need much motivation to begin with, but still).
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
BM, I am not a partisan. When I am incorrect, I am happy (well, not always, but always willing) to admit to it. I did not "want" my statement about Romney potentially getting more votes from TP/conservatives to be true; I made the statement because I thought it was true. You, pigeon, and Link contradicted the statement, and so I did some quick research. Then, I asked you for evidence supporting your side, and you came back with nothing but rationalizations. The things you say in the post I've quoted could be true, but are they? Without evidence, how did you decide that they were?
So, you have no evidence. Pigeon? Link?
Black Mamba
Member
You made the original statement so the onus should be on you to demonstrate it. Not on pigeon or me laughing at the absurd statement you made.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm not trying to prove it, BM. How are you missing that point? I'm trying to investigate it. The easiest way to investigate it is to ask others who have made assertions about the truth of the matter, because I assume that you and pigeon and Link wouldn't make the assertions in direct contradiction to what I said unless you had some reason to believe what you were saying was true.
For instance, I believed that what I said was true based on my own experience with conservatives. Of course, that's not very compelling evidence, which is why I decided I needed better evidence if I were to get to the truth. You don't have any, so I'll wait for one of the others to be helpful.
(BTW, if you guys don't have the evidence, I don't expect you to go out of your way to find it. I couldn't expect that from you if I'm not willing to do the same.)
- Status