I am not sure what to think about this.........They only thing that can help me decide my feelings is for bobmarley to post 5 or 6 more articles a day for the next week......maybe then. I can form an opinion. #getajob
lol, did you read the quotes? They list themselves that they are targeting "conservative", "tea party", and "politically active" groups. How are they not affiliated? They SHOULD be questioned for nonprofit.
Too bad the IRS was taking their sweet time to even question them. Some groups it took over 400 days and then the questions were for donor names, Facebook and twitter accounts, and what was said in their prayers. And not a single progressive/demo/liberal group was ever asked for such meticulous data, and it was all expected within 20 days. Then they had the fear that the IRS would leak their donor list to liberal groups and their donors would be attacked. All the while, the IRS spent about 50 million on exorbitant conferences. Please discuss the points 1. Why did the IRS take so long to even go through the conservative applications and most of the liberal applications went straight through? If they were targeted, why is that ok but not ok for liberal groups? 2. Why did the IRS ask such inane and offensive questions to only conservative groups? Why did they not ask the liberal groups the same questions? Is it ok to ask for donor lists, social media accounts, wording of prayers? Why didn't the IRS ever ask such questions to liberal groups? 3. Do you think it is ok that the IRS is leaking sensitive donor information from an approved organization to a opposition group that uses the info to attack person on the lists? 4. The Supreme Court ruled that 501c4 can be up to 49% political, do you disagree with SCOTUS and why? 5. If you believe that no politcal groups should get exempt status do you think it ok that Obama's campaign organization should be able to become exempt? (They are in the process for exemption.) 6. Lack of funding and understaffing has been blamed for backlog of applications. Do you think that is still a valid excuse even after hearing the IRS spent about 50 million on conferences when they lied last year and only spent 600k? 7. Was it ethical for the IRS to withhold 125 million from the state of Virginia that they were awarded from a lawsuit on a pharmaceutical company that paid the amount, because of sequestration?
There is a huge difference between the things a private employer can do and what the government can do as an employer.
I disagree with the SCOTUS. The reason is because the IRS changed a law without congressional approval. In this nation Congress passes the laws. To allow that kind of executive power grab is wrong. The law that congress passed said this. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/13/odonnell-the-real-irs-scandal-happened-in-1959/ Let me ask you if you approve of that kind of seizing of power by a Federal agency and bypassing the constitutional set up of our nation? The SCOTUS decision backs "primarily" version of the law, and not the actual law passed by congress.
This should explain what you disagree with. Congress didn't see the need to adjust the IRS' stance on the issue. Now the SCOTUS has ruled there is nothing unconstitutional about it either. If you want something changed, then talk to your Congressman. I am still awaiting your response to the other points. Also, you might want to not take MSNBC's word for what they call news. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...dd9c-cdb0-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story_1.html
My congressman wasn't in congress in 1959 or 1960. Nothing you posted changed or refutes anything I quoted from MSNBC.
It was a Congressional law that contradicted the 1913 statute. The Congress had a choice to do something about it but didn't. So under that environment the IRS had every right to do what they did in 57 to make things clear. You can talk to your Congressman now.
Congress passed a law in 1950 that contradicted the exclusively section of the clause. They didn't do anything to fix the contradiction. Probably on purpose. The IRS took the cue that if Congress contradicted the law then it didn't mean absolutely exclusive. Please tell me when Congress told the IRS they disagreed with tax code adjustment and told them it was against the law. Most believe their silence was the approval. Because the provision benefits both parties equally. But it wasn't until the Tea Party movement and the Obama braintrust was scared they would be outraised that anyone ever made a fuss, and that is what led to this targeting.
So you are okay with executive govt. agencies taking it on themselves to amend congressional law if they have a question about it? Is that the proper role of the govt. in your opinion? As far as when congress told the IRS? It was when they passed the law.
You are vapid. The Congress passed a law that contradicted the law. So the IRS is sitting there looking at the Congress now with two statutes that directly contradict each other. The Congress NEVER decides to do anything about it. In this instance the Dept. of Treasury has my fullest confidence to take both laws together and make it work. Congress can make laws, but they have to actually work. After 57 the Congress never once decided to change anything or say anything to the IRS about. I also added this to my previous post.
Cincinnati IRS Employee: I Was ‘Essentially a Front Person’ for Washington http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7713122409302.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/05/i...ull-oversaw-targeting-of-conservative-groups/
Soros Groups Dodged Scrutiny, Pushed Tea Party Profiling http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/060513-658978-soros-groups-escaped-irs-special-scrutiny.htm
IRS Official Sarah Hall Ingram Who Headed Division Targeting Conservatives Recorded 165 White House Visits Separate From Shulman… Between Ingram and former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman they visited the White House over 300 times… and nobody said anything about what was going on in the tax-exempt division (that Ingram headed)? Via Daily Caller: ------------------ More and more evidence keeps coming out that doesn't look good to the Obama administration.
CBS Poll: 68% Says IRS Targeting Conservatives Was Politically Driven, 44% Think Obama Was Behind It… The IRS isn’t fooling anyone with their claims the targeting was not politically motivated. Via CBS News:
