IRS Selectively Targeting

[Conan71]

Politicians? Without a doubt.

Its the general populace of Okies that doesn't seem to care when a conservative Republican is serving as president during such activities, but howl when a Democrat is in office.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if the IRS didn't get interested when such large numbers of tax exempt organizations suddenly started coming in.

Continuing on the hilarious strawman thread the left has decided to go with on the "13 embassy attacks under Bush and only two under Obama":  There were, what, two documented instances of the IRS targeting a couple of left-leaning (I didn't realize NAACP was either liberal or conservative, glad that veil has finally been lifted!) groups under the Bush admin?  Seems there's been systemic targeting of anything which looked to be a conservative political front group while more liberal ones were given (c) (4) certification pretty easily.  I've also read accounts that prominent GOP bundlers for Romney like Sheldon Adelson have gotten the deep scope from the IRS recently.

Okay, rabid foaming rant mode off- as to your last sentence this may well have been a result of Citizens United, a SCROTUS decision that I think was a very bad one.  I'm sure there was a huge influx of applications as there are around any election year.  But, if reports are correct that there were more liberal leaning groups getting what amounted to a free pass while more conservative ones were made to sit and spin, that's a problem.

[Gaspar]

The power to tax is the power to destroy. – John Marshall

But it is also the power to bless.  Give government the power to play favorites, and all kinds of bad things happen.

Perhaps this is a good time to discuss changes in the tax code?

The idea behind taxation is to fund the mechanisms of government.  Somewhere along the line we got lost, and began to use taxation as a punitive measure against people and organizations.  Taxation migrated from a legislative function of government to a convoluted act of law enforcement and control.  In doing so it became a sword for the politicians right hand and a purse for his left. 

We spend a lot of time talking about political corruption, and crooked politicians, but if you look at the mechanics of that corruption, at it's very heart is our tax system.  Take away a politicians ability to distribute funds through taxation and you strip away most of the corruption. 

Flat, fair, or usage based systems devoid of special privilege, exemption, or advantage, offer the most logical solution.  Unfortunately, they are also a pipe-dream because too many in our society have learned to come to the top of the water and feed from the hand of government, rather than feed themselves or each other.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We spend a lot of time talking about political corruption, and crooked politicians, but if you look at the mechanics of that corruption, at it's very heart is our tax system.  Take away a politicians ability to distribute funds through taxation and you strip away most of the corruption. 

Flat, fair, or usage based systems devoid of special privilege, exemption, or advantage, offer the most logical solution.  Unfortunately, they are also a pipe-dream because too many in our society have learned to come to the top of the water and feed from the hand of government, rather than feed themselves or each other.

Like Eisenhower said...

[AquaMan]

They don't look back that far, even for their own kind.

I'm really tired of being constrained by some libertarian's idea of a united liberal front. I seldom visit political websites and even then just for viewpoints or humor. I'm sure conservatives and libertarians tire of being lumped in with the idiot remarks made by Rand Paul and that Texas governor. Can't we just stop with that nonsense?

[Gaspar]

I'm really tired of being constrained by some libertarian's idea of a united liberal front.

Than perhaps you should continue to sleep.

. . . or refuse to accept the definition by posing an independent viewpoint.

People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. – Walter Williams

[AquaMan]

Than perhaps you should continue to sleep.

. . . or refuse to accept the definition by posing an independent viewpoint.

People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. – Walter Williams

Sorry, I won't live by your rules, your view of the world or follow your directions based on such.

There is no uniform liberal anymore than there is a uniform Black person, Southern person, conservative, etc. That is, sadly, your construct.

[Gaspar]

Sorry, I won't live by your rules, your view of the world or follow your directions based on such.

There is no uniform liberal anymore than there is a uniform Black person, Southern person, conservative, etc. That is, sadly, your construct.

That's odd.  You seem to be offering non sequitur logic.  Modern Liberalism, Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Progressivism are defined political philosophies based on differing world views.  Race and regionally are defined either by genetic makeup or geographical location, and have no connection to this line of reasoning.

If you are a Liberal, that means you recognize and align yourself with most of an established set philosophical beliefs that incorporate the definition of being Liberal, just as my classification of myself as a Libertarian requires that I recognize and align myself with the majority of libertarian philosophical beliefs.

To escape definition (and the dilema you seem to have with it) your best option would be not to align yourself with the political philosophy and it's corresponding nomenclature.   

[AquaMan]

That is too effing stupid to seriously respond to

[Gaspar]

Anywhoo. . .

Now it comes to this.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story
WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.

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 reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.

Lerner was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight committee Wednesday.

[Gaspar]

Lerner takes the 5th, threats of a special prosecutor come not from Republicans, but from Democrats!
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/remaining-silent-on-the-i-r-s/


Rep. Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat warned:“We know where that will lead, it will lead to a special prosecutor. … There will be hell to pay if that’s the route that we choose to go down,” he said. He also accused the Obama administration of placing a “higher priority on deniability than addressing blatant wrongdoing.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/22/rep-issa-accuses-irs-misleading-congress-and-ameri/#ixzz2U343Yqrp



To whom do lions cast their gentle looks? Not to the beast that would usurp their den. The smallest worm will turn being trodden on, And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.- Bill Shakesphere

[Gaspar]

It seems that Mrs. Learner is even incompetent when attempting to take the 5th.  She may be called back up without 5th amendment protection because she chose to make a statement claiming witness to her innocence, instead of asserting her right not to bear witness against herself.  

For future reference, when you are going to assert your right not to bear witness on the grounds that your own testimony may serve to incriminate you, you should not, in the same breath, attest to your innocence.  By responding to Issa's questions with the statement: “I have not done anything wrong, I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.” Lerner may have effectively offered testimony on her behalf.

“When I asked her her questions from the very beginning, I did so so she could assert her rights prior to any statement,” Issa told POLITICO. “She chose not to do so — so she waived.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/darrell-issa-irs-lois-lerner-91755.html?hp=t3_3

[guido911]

Trey Gowdy responds to the assertion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=10EWW7hPWhQ[/youtube]

[Ed W]

So let's see if I understand this right. A couple of Republican congressmen, one with a background in electronics manufacturing and another as a federal prosecutor, believe that a witness waived her fifth amendment rights without ever specifically saying so, and now they can somehow compel testimony from her.  I guess if she refuses they can charge her with contempt of congress, but they'd have to charge the rest of us too.  Maybe we'll get to see the first-ever waterboarding in a congressional witch hunt investigation.  What a proud day for America!

[Red Arrow]

So let's see if I understand this right. A couple of Republican congressmen, one with a background in electronics manufacturing and another as a federal prosecutor, believe that a witness waived her fifth amendment rights without ever specifically saying so, and now they can somehow compel testimony from her. 

I would think a federal prosecutor's opinion on that subject might have some credibility even if he is a Republican.  Might even be credible if he was a Democrat.

[Ed W]

I would think a federal prosecutor's opinion on that subject might have some credibility even if he is a Republican.  Might even be credible if he was a Democrat.

I'd give it a qualified maybe. I'd expect that the Republicans would back him and the Democrats would oppose, but who decides which is correct?  Does it go to a federal court?