Watergate v2 (IRS Scandal)

[SephYuyX]

Since this shows the left in a bad light, I figured this wouldn't get posted at all; So just to get you guys started so yall can fight amongst yourselves.

Here's some CNN articles.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/irs/
http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=irs...nce&intl=false

[Raldo]

I've read a few things about this, and I just don't get what it's about. The IRS is "targetting" groups/people? What the heck does that even mean? Assuming said groups have their shit in order, everything should still be okay for them, right? Why is this such a huge deal? I have to be missing something.

[Cadsuane]

Yeah I don't get it either. Although I do understand how being forced to pay taxes would be uniquely infuriating to conservatives.

[Kaslo]

I've read a few things about this, and I just don't get what it's about. The IRS is "targetting" groups/people? What the heck does that even mean? Assuming said groups have their shit in order, everything should still be okay for them, right? Why is this such a huge deal? I have to be missing something.

And whats wrong with an anti-tax group being targeted to make sure their tax-exempt/tax-benefit status shit is subject to a second look?

[Waraji]

It's supposed to be a big deal because conservatives are all up in arms because the IRS was "targeting" their tea party groups whom were trying to get tax exemptions for their tea party group activities. I think it's all being blown out of proportion, maybe. I would like to see a full list of "groups" the IRS "targeted" during that time, so as not to skew this claim of Conservatives being wronged fully. But honestly, the majority of the people not giving a shit about this also don't like the Conservative Tea Party movement anyways. They are trying to find other avenues to hate the presidency/democrats. Their 2016 Election machine is full steam starting November 2012.

[JigglyJam]

This would be more of a deal if they were denied based on if the groups were conservative or not but it seems like they just went in and subjected these groups to more scrutiny. IRS making sure nobody skipping out on taxes is a-okay in my book.

That's just me doing a preliminary search on the subject. I didn't even know there was a 'scandal'.

[Byrthnoth]

I think the AP communications seizure is a much bigger story. This IRS thing is just kind of mismanagement/"who cares?" level bullshit.

[shaggnix]

i think its funny how half of the first articles ends up talking about benghazi, paul admits that all the facts are not known, and then a whole lot of pre-presidential bid posturing. hes pretty much assuming it will be him vs hillary and he's making sure he has as much ammo as he can stock pile.

serious question - targeting groups that used the terms "tea party" or "conservative" while applying for tax exempt status - was this out of political "you don't like the pres so we busting balls where we can" ... or .... was there doubt that these types of groups qualified?


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,1156613.story

this is really just an opinion piece i found thru the magic of google, but the first half hints at this

Like most people, I was originally horrified by the reported targeting of tea party groups ("IRS head forced to go," May 16). I am now less horrified.

It is reported that various tea party groups were requesting tax exempt status as a "social welfare" group. We now need to know the definition of a "social welfare" group. Entities operating under the umbrella of the tea party would not appear to qualify. Of course, this tempest in a tea pot does highlight some interesting issues. Do we wish to expand the number of entities claiming tax exempt status or should we limit the number of groups not paying taxes?

[Waraji]

That makes it even better... Social Welfare for Conservative Anti-Government Groups. Please tell me how this isn't poetic.

[Eurell]

Since this shows the left in a bad light, I figured this wouldn't get posted at all; So just to get you guys started so yall can fight amongst yourselves.

Here's some CNN articles.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/irs/
http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=irs...nce&intl=false

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzlyke4NW31qzlvmi.gif

[Drex]

This would be more of a deal if they were denied based on if the groups were conservative or not but it seems like they just went in and subjected these groups to more scrutiny. IRS making sure nobody skipping out on taxes is a-okay in my book.

And aiming searches (or shall we say "audits") at specific races at the airport or on the highway is a-okay because they're just applying extra scrutiny to make sure no muslims or blax are bringing bombs on the plane and no mexicans are bringing drug money to the US. God help you if you've got any cash on you. lol

1) The issue is that the IRS asked questions completely inappropriate for such an investigation. They were asking questions like who the donors are (which groups granted status are not required to divulge...unless the IRS decides to require it to grant them status, which defeats the entire purpose of such a provision).

2) As far as we know, nothing was wrong with their financials. They were "scrutinized" and withdrew their applications because they refused to answer questions that they should have never been asked. Would you poke fun at a gay person for being unemployed because they refused to answer job interview questions about their sexual preferences? What are they gonna do, call the cops on the IRS?

3) Regardless, everyone fucks up their taxes because it's designed to be nearly impossible to get right, which is why even 20 year vet CPAs shit their pants when an audit comes down the pipes. You only get caught if the IRS "targets" you. Placing "special emphasis" on "reviewing" any demographic is de facto discrimination because just about any group applying for tax-exempt status is going to have problems that get them boned. If you look at conservative groups and rubber stamp liberal groups, that's an obvious problem, especially since the opposite case would yield the same results for liberal groups getting denied.

4) It happened during the run-up to election season. Implying implications etc.

[Rhyis.]

So like, how is this "watergate v2" exactly?

[Jaybar]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...-into-darkness

(Can't embed from dailyshow )

[Cail]

So like, how is this "watergate v2" exactly?

Wondering that myself.

[Waraji]

I was thinking Seph just took the title off a Fox News ... thing... or w/e it is they call their news now.

[Plow]

That makes it even better... Social Welfare for Conservative Anti-Government Groups. Please tell me how this isn't poetic.

it's 501(c)(4)...'s

It's how superpacs get unlimited anonymous funding by setting up a "social welfare" wing that's basically just not allowed to spend more than half its money on politics.


The problem here is a branch of the government involved in law enforcement selectively increasing their stringency for groups based on their political opinions. That's a bad thing.

The simple logic of the tax guys going after anti-tax groups doesn't matter here.


Think occupy getting harassed because the people that pay the cops' salaries don't like what they're saying.

[Plow]

also it has absolutely nothing to do with "the left," or the president, in any way, shape, or form

[Helm]

I lol'd at the Watergate v2 part.

[Niiro]

A bunch of conservative/Tea Party groups try to apply for privileged tax/donor status without meeting the requirements.

IRS catches wise and notifies their people to be more thorough when dealing with these cases.

Makes the mistake of noting that the vast majority of cases seen have involved conservative/Tea Party groups.

Inadvertently hands GOP a golden ticket to come up with whatever story they want for the next decade.

[JigglyJam]

And aiming searches (or shall we say "audits") at specific races at the airport or on the highway is a-okay because they're just applying extra scrutiny to make sure no muslims or blax are bringing bombs on the plane and no mexicans are bringing drug money to the US. God help you if you've got any cash on you. lol

Sucks but not against the law.

1) The issue is that the IRS asked questions completely inappropriate for such an investigation. They were asking questions like who the donors are (which groups granted status are not required to divulge...unless the IRS decides to require it to grant them status, which defeats the entire purpose of such a provision).

Why is this a point then?

2) As far as we know, nothing was wrong with their financials. They were "scrutinized" and withdrew their applications because they refused to answer questions that they should have never been asked. Would you poke fun at a gay person for being unemployed because they refused to answer job interview questions about their sexual preferences? What are they gonna do, call the cops on the IRS?

I don't think that analogy works. You just said the IRS is allowed to ask those questions. (See point 1)

3) Regardless, everyone fucks up their taxes because it's designed to be nearly impossible to get right, which is why even 20 year vet CPAs shit their pants when an audit comes down the pipes. You only get caught if the IRS "targets" you. Placing "special emphasis" on "reviewing" any demographic is de facto discrimination because just about any group applying for tax-exempt status is going to have problems that get them boned. If you look at conservative groups and rubber stamp liberal groups, that's an obvious problem, especially since the opposite case would yield the same results for liberal groups getting denied.

The IRS targets you if they suspect something's not right. You use the word caught which implies guilt. Are you arguing that due to the complexities of the tax code nobody ever has their tax information in order and the IRS just willy-nilly singles you out for the fun of it? I would agree that automatically qualifying certain groups with no oversight over others is discriminatory.

A bunch of conservative/Tea Party groups try to apply for privileged tax/donor status without meeting the requirements.

IRS catches wise and notifies their people to be more thorough when dealing with these cases.

Makes the mistake of noting that the vast majority of cases seen have involved conservative/Tea Party groups.

Inadvertently hands GOP a golden ticket to come up with whatever story they want for the next decade.

That makes more sense.