Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
anyone else notice that Rep Neal (D-MA) submitted a list of liberal groups that had also been subjected to extra scrutiny
So are the Dems trying to convince the IRS that they didn't target groups and they should not have apologized ? Is he going to tell Obama that he shouldn't have fired that guy the other day ?
The IRS is not denying this you know. They actually admitted they did this and it was rogue workers in Cincinnati who have been "disciplined".
I guess the Dems can't get their head around the fact that the IRS has already admitted guilt.
But they are. This has been covered. That they are is not the fault of the groups but rather the convoluted tax codes and the politicians that created them.
People are so quick to blame the Supreme Court for coming down on the side of our Constitutional rights but give the politicians that created these rules in the first place.
Politicians could end them tomorrow. They don't because they want to selectively go after the groups they want stopped.
Absolutely correct. Congress created this system, I assume both sides wanted tax exempt status for thei political groups, ability to hide donors and the latitude to write to the IRS to single out groups they don't agree with. No sane person would develop a system like this, politicians need to take a close look in the mirror, let congress come up with a litmus test for these groups if they on't like the IRS questions.
They did have a large amount of applications after the supreme court ruling, if anyting the IRS shoudl be coming up with more stringent guidlines.
anyone else notice that Rep Neal (D-MA) submitted a list of liberal groups that had also been subjected to extra scrutiny
I saw one list that had groups that had their status revoked after doing things they were not supposed to. Of course, that's only a guess as to what you are talking about.
Laws specifically state that people can sue the IRS when their approval has been delayed.
Yes, they can sue. And maybe some will succeed. But I think that the hysteria that is currently happening will give birth to many, many lawsuits. But they will have to show that approval of their application was willfully delayed because of bias. The IRS was over-burdened with applications, with insufficient staff to review applications, and if the applicant had any political goals, implied in their name or in the organization's statements, then the IRS was within its rights to scrutinize that organization, even if such scrutiny took time. It's a bureaucracy, and things take time. An applicant's perception that their approval was delayed, and the bureaucracy's perception of approval being delayed, are two different things, and is therefore subjective. Courts don't like to rule on subjective matter, they will want real, tangible, damage to be proven. That's extremely difficult. Shoulda-woulda-coulda has to be backed up with a genuine and deliberate action on the part of the IRS to cause damage.
So are the Dems trying to convince the IRS that they didn't target groups and they should not have apologized ? Is he going to tell Obama that he shouldn't have fired that guy the other day ?
The IRS is not denying this you know. They actually admitted they did this and it was rogue workers in Cincinnati who have been "disciplined".
I guess the Dems can't get their head around the fact that the IRS has already admitted guilt.
Your misunderstand what has been said in the hearing and misinterpreting the apology.
Mr.Miller said it himself. This wasnt done because of political reasons, this was done because groups applying for 501(c)4's that are political have common names. That system they used however affected Republican/conservative groups more so than liberals in the beginning which is why the system was changed way back in January 2012.
No one is saying the IRS didnt apologize for a faulty system, but they never said they did it for political reasons either, which is what you and republicans have claimed.
Much ado about nothing....as if our liberties are nothing, and it is OK if a government agency acts to suppress political beliefs.
If Obama was in on this, then it is about a totally corrupt president. If he was not, it is about a totally corrupt system--a machine that is out of control.
All you have to do is replace "conservative" and "tea party" with "environmental" or "hispanic", and you'd see the outrage times ten.
Equal Protection means just that - every citizen is treated equally. To disregard that, IN AN ATTEMPT TO WIN AN ELECTION, is corrupt.
So are the Dems trying to convince the IRS that they didn't target groups and they should not have apologized ? Is he going to tell Obama that he shouldn't have fired that guy the other day ?
The IRS is not denying this you know. They actually admitted they did this and it was rogue workers in Cincinnati who have been "disciplined".
I guess the Dems can't get their head around the fact that the IRS has already admitted guilt.
Actually, if you'd read the Inspector General's report, the IRS has pointed out that conservative groups only made up a third of the applications that they closely scrutinized. Credit repair groups also made up a substantial portion of those applications that received close scrutiny. And many liberal groups also received close scrutiny. The IRS didn't just scrutinize conservative groups. They scrutinized many organizations. The problem is that they profiled applications; some keywords often associated with conservative political groups were used to identify applications that merited additional scrutiny. They shouldn't have engaged in profiling, because that's not acceptable. But they didn't ONLY scrutinize conservative groups, and that's an important point to make.
Your misunderstand what has been said in the hearing and misinterpreting the apology.
Mr.Miller said it himself. This wasnt done because of political reasons, this was done because groups applying for 501(c)4's that are political have common names. That system they used however affected Republican/conservative groups more so than liberals in the beginning which is why the system was changed way back in January 2012.
No one is saying the IRS didnt apologize for a faulty system, but they never said they did it for political reasons either, which is what you and republicans have claimed.
I claimed they did it for political reasons ?
LOL..
Then why did Obama fire someone ?
Why did the DOJ say they would investigate ?
Why is Congress having hearings ?
If it were just an overwhelming amount of applications then why ?
They already had hearings on this and the IRS said they didn't do anything wrong.
But they did an about face and said they did last week and apologized for it.
Well of course they are not going to admit they did it for political reasons.
Did they ever in the past ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you say COVER-UP? 
