[BilboBagend]

Remember when Teagaggers falsely accused Obama of using the IRS to target teagagger groups? Remember that all political groups had been marked for additional scrutiny? Remember that no political group at all was ever refused or delayed in it's operations under 501(c)4? or had to pay any tax?

Now the issue is being resolved by the IRS. The IRS is reverting to the actual law that says that 501(c)4's are only to be given to groups that are EXCLUSIVELY social welfare groups and NOT engaged in politics. Thus no more 501(c)4 tax exemptions for any political group. All denied as they always should have been denied.

IRS scandal resolved legally and correctly according to the law as written by Congress.

And, as always, the teagagger noise machine was all pure lies.

[RealJustme]

The IRS is reverting to the actual law that says that 501(c)4's are only to be given to groups that are EXCLUSIVELY social welfare groups and NOT engaged in politics. Thus no more 501(c)4 tax exemptions for any political group. All denied as they always should have been denied.

You mean Organizing for Action and the NAACP are losing their tax exempt status?

[johnforbes]

If there was no IRS scandal, why did the IRS admit it was improperly using its power to target Tea Party groups?

However, we may be sure that Eric "Sherlock" Holder is diligently investigating Fast and Furious, the IRS corruption, the Benghazi lies, and the Obamacare lies, right?

[BilboBagend]

Aw, little wannabe faux shows up his delusions again. How cute.

Remember, the only functional difference for political organizations between a 524 and a 501 is that in a 501 they get to keep their donors secret. So, the real issue is about secret big money politics in the far deep back room.

It looks like the teagaggers are really FOR big money secret back room politics. No surprise there.

[johnforbes]

If there was no IRS scandal, why did the IRS admit it was improperly using its power to target Tea Party groups?

However, we may be sure that Eric "Sherlock" Holder is diligently investigating Fast and Furious, the IRS corruption, the Benghazi lies, and the Obamacare lies, right?

[2X8]

A conversation:

Bob: "Hey Jim, did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?
Jim: "You mean the Mexican gun running?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean SEAL Team 6?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Obama saying the avg family would save $2,500 on their premiums?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs by paying for drugs that abort the unborn?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Violating the rights and sanctity of our Churches?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Spending $634 million on a website that doesn't work?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Obama calling for an increase in our debt when he lambasted Bush for the very same thing?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Obama having NSA spy on 124 Billion Phone Calls in One Month?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Saddling our kids with $17 trillion in debt of which they can
never get out of and will not have as good a life as we have?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Bailing out Detroit after decades of corrupt Democratic management?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean voter fraud?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Intentionally trying to hurt Americans during the sequester?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Blocking veterans who secured our freedoms from their monuments but giving the green light for Illegal’s to use Monument Mall?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Denying school kids the ability to tour the White House but still spending lavishly on his parties?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean Obama saying we can keep our insurance and doctors if we wanted to?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The NSA monitoring foreign diplomats?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the use of drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Bob: "No the other one.
Jim: "The IRS targeting conservatives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean Obama spending $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Millions of Americans losing their health care coverage?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Forcing Americans to include coverage in their insurance policies of items they do not want?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Denying Arizona the right to protect its borders?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Providing weapons to Syrian rebels many of whom apparently are Al Qaeda"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The president's unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate's advise-and-consent role?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "The President using nearly $1 trillion dollars of stimulus money to fund his cronies?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "You mean Fast & Furious?"
Bob: "No, the other one."
Jim: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters who don't pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in American history?"
Bob: "THAT'S THE ONE!

[RealJustme]

A very true conversation, although there were dozens of other examples that could have been included.

[BilboBagend]

Proving the total malice and delusions of the teagaggers.


ROFLMAO, good one.

[elklindo69]

Where's Darryl???

He should have drummed up something by now.

What's his conclusion? Or has he swept everything under the rug......

:lol:

[johnforbes]

The IRS admitted to taking special aim at Tea Party groups.

That is how we know they did it -- they admitted doing it and said they would quit it.

Of course, they didn't say the obvious, which is that the IRS would continue its attempts in other ways.

Is this serious? Yes, misuse of the IRS was one impeachment charge Nixon would have faced.

This was bad for Nixon or any president to do, and bad for Obama too.

His apologists should ponder that this is a nonpartisan matter, and it relates to the fact that power corrupts (as Acton noted).

[BilboBagend]

The IRS admitted to taking special aim at Tea Party groups.

simple liar

The IRS admitted to selecting for further review ALL political groups.

No political group was denied the exemption.

No political group was told to cease or slow operations. Operations went on as normal.

No political group suffered any loss at all. No limitations.

and

The only reason to ask for this exemption is to be able to hide the donors. Exemptions for political activities exist in the code. Thus, this is not about the ability to function as a political group tax fee.A function that was never restricted in any way. It's simply about hiding the huge donations from the public. Which also was never restricted.

[johnforbes]

If there was no IRS scandal, why did the IRS admit it was improperly using its power to target Tea Party groups?

Why did Obama say the allegations, later found factual, were "outrageous"?

That's because it was a disgrace when Nixon abused the IRS.

It was also a disgrace that Obama did.

However, we may be sure that Eric "Sherlock" Holder is diligently investigating Fast and Furious, the IRS corruption, the Benghazi lies, and the Obamacare lies, right?

[RealJustme]

Remember when Teagaggers falsely accused Obama of using the IRS to target teagagger groups?

Do you remember the IRS testifying they did target the Tea Party?

[Grog]

They also targeted progressives. They targeted groups who were attempting to falsely obtain tax exempt status.


Fair and ... balanced.



Marco

[RealJustme]

Fair and ... balanced.

Wrong the IRS admitted they went after conservatives groups more than liberal groups.

[Grog]

Whatever you say, Bluto.






Marco

[BilboBagend]

Aw, the fact free delusions of a malice filled teagagger. Thsnks justupid. You continue to prove yourself totally dishonest.

[BilboBagend]

Here is the real scandals.

Not enough groups were targeted for further examination, both conservative and liberal. Large scale groups like Crossroads GPS were treated differently than small groups. Groups without obvious political buzz words in their titles were not tagged for further examination nearly as often as those with obvious buzzwords like "Tea party".

There were many sites that engaged in these increased scrutinies. Criteria were inconsistent.

No group was denied or delayed in it's operations. All Operated at all times under the tax exemption of the 501(c)4 at all times.

Now for a little stat: Out of the 296 organizations that were tagged for further investigation, 30 were deemed legitimate 501(c)4 operations in the investigation of IRS scandal.

For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 were open

Treasury.gov on Congressional Investigation

We reviewed all 298 applications that had been identified as potential political cases as of May 31, 2012. In the majority of cases, we agreed that the applications submitted included indications of significant political campaign intervention. However, we did not identify any indications of significant political campaign intervention for 91 (31 percent) of the 296 applications[27] that had complete documentation.[28]

Treasury.gov on Congressional Investigation (Note: this under the "Primarily" criterion rather than the law which specifies "exclusively social, exclusively non-political")

One question that is NOT answered in the investigation is the question of whether "conservative groups" were targeted more frequently than "liberal" groups. The investigation simply concludes that "conservative" groups were targeted. True enough, and all that Republicans wanted to know in the investigation. The investigation, brought by conservatives, does NOT ask the question of whether "liberal" groups were targeted, so that is not really addressed.

The MSM at one point reported that both conservative and liberal political organizations were targeted for further investigation in about the same proportions of their applications with equal dependence on political buzzwords.

So,

was there a scandal? Clearly!

was it targeted against conservatives? Probably not.

was it that political applications were audited? Definitely not. It was that not enough political organizations were audited and that none were delayed in operations or turned down for 501(c)4 status.

People at the IRS fucked up. It was a scandal. It was not the scandal that conservatives want to make of it. It was a different scandal and probably not targeted at one side of the political argument.

[BilboBagend]

Also, it was NEVER about the tax exemption. Political groups get the tax exemption under other sections of the code.

The ONLY substantive difference and the reason these political organizations want the 501(c)4 exemption is to keep there donations secret and allow huge donations by the uber-wealthy to be unreported to the public.

An atrocity.

[johnforbes]

If there was no IRS scandal, why did the IRS admit it was improperly using its power to target Tea Party groups?

Why did Obama say the allegations, later found factual, were "outrageous"?

That's because it was a disgrace when Nixon abused the IRS.

It was also a disgrace that Obama did.

[BilboBagend]

1) read
2) that's all you have. Your delusions about Obama.

All you do is prove your dishonesty little wannabe faux.