bengalrick Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Rick did you read the last link? Progressive groups were denied under this Bush created program. Not sure why you keep saying they weren't I read it and don't see what you are saying. I don't see Bush referred to once in the whole piece. Nothing talking about a law that went in during his time that specifically called out only liberals. Nothing about liberals being targeted during a republican presidency, which is how this particular exchange started between you and I. I basically see that some liberal groups were also denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I never said liberal groups were ONLY targeted I said ALSO which your last article said they weren't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I never said liberal groups were ONLY targeted I said ALSO which your last article said they weren't No it didn't say that. The article actually says they were scrutinized but they could be approved at the screener level where ALL tea party applicants were moved to higher ups and mysteriously all of those were help up for over 2 years. A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501©(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501©(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Right and as such my article shows that there were liberal groups denied, to my knowledge not a single tea party group was denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 According to my quick research, the only group that was denied (that we know of) was a liberal group. I concede that point However, the main question here is why was there additional scrutiny on tea party groups. Noone said they were denied, they were simply held up for an extremely long period for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 According to my quick research, the only group that was denied (that we know of) was a liberal group. I concede that point However, the main question here is why was there additional scrutiny on tea party groups. Noone said they were denied, they were simply held up for an extremely long period for no good reason. These seem like good reasons Mission Statement Propelled by millions of Tea Party supporters across the country, Tea Party Express has become the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena. We are committed to identifying and supporting conservative candidates and causes that will champion tea party values and return our country to the Constitutional principles that have made America the “shining city on a hill.” Tea Party Express is proud to stand for six simple principles: No more bailouts Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government Stop raising our taxes Repeal Obamacare Cease out-of-control spending Bring back American prosperity Their mission relates to anti-tax and getting politicians they liked elected. Not suppossed to be able to get non profit status and be connected to a political party in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 According to my quick research, the only group that was denied (that we know of) was a liberal group. I concede that point However, the main question here is why was there additional scrutiny on tea party groups. Noone said they were denied, they were simply held up for an extremely long period for no good reason. I conceed that they were put into a que to wait based on their names alone, which I do have a problem with, however I have absolutely ZERO problem with extra scrutiny on all groups, I mean we are talking about giving them tax breaks, based on their activites. The problem for me is scrutiny based on their name alone, the scrutiny should be deep on all groups accross the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I conceed that they were put into a que to wait based on their names alone, which I do have a problem with, however I have absolutely ZERO problem with extra scrutiny on all groups, I mean we are talking about giving them tax breaks, based on their activites. The problem for me is scrutiny based on their name alone, the scrutiny should be deep on all groups accross the board. Completely agreed! Good to come together on points we agree with. Good debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Completely agreed! Good to come together on points we agree with. Good debate... Even though I disagree with you regarding fiscal conservatism, and the notion of small goverment (which I frankly think is a false dichotomy, and that the talk should be about is goverment working and where it is and isnt and what we can do to fix it if it isnt, not big vs small) due to my inherent opposition to austerity and belif in the GDP forumla, and further recent debunking of the Reinhart and Rogoff paper. I'd still have a beer with you, you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 thanks man. Same here. Hope that happens one of these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 thanks man. Same here. Hope that happens one of these days. I'll be in 'Nati this weekend for my sisters wedding, I'm indisposed with the exception of Sunday afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Sunday is family and church day. Unfortunately not going to be a good one for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 Sunday is family and church day. Unfortunately not going to be a good one for me. another time then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 http://www.alan.com/2014/04/23/new-records-show-irs-targeted-liberal-groups-more-than-tea-party/ New Records Show IRS Targeted Liberal Groups More Than Tea Party April 23, 2014 | Filed under: Politics,Top Stories | Posted by: Alan Repost This Article Think Progress obtained a series of IRS documents via the Freedom of Information Act thatcontradict Republican claims that the IRS targeted only conservative Tea Party groups for scrutiny because of their political beliefs. The 22 “Be On the Look Out” keywords lists, distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities. The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress, after nearly a year-long search. From the earliest lists through 2012, the “historical” section of the lists encouraged reviewers to watch out for “progressive” groups with names like “blue,” as their requests for 501(c)(3) charitable status might be inappropriate. Their inclusion in this section suggests that the concern predates the initial 2010 list. Explicit references to “Tea Party,” included in the “emerging issues” section of the lists, also began in August 2010 — but stopped appearing after the May 10, 2011 list. From that point on, the lists instructed agents to flag all political advocacy groups of any stripe. The documents instructed the agents to forward any “organization involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy” applying for 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status be forwarded to “group 7822″ for additional review. Groups under both categories are limited in the amount of of lobbying and political activity each can undertake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalRep85-9 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 That doesn't fit the agenda, therefore it is untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Elflocko| Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 That doesn't fit the agenda, therefore it is untrue. :32: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.