IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups...

[Justice]

Not sure why any organization, church included, that engages in political lobbying of any kind should receive tax-exempt status.

that is what our constitution is about.

[Vol_Bengal]

Not sure why any organization, church included, that engages in political lobbying of any kind should receive tax-exempt status.

+1,000 with the emphasis on "engages in political lobbying"...

 

as soon as that practice starts any tax exempt opportunities should go away.

[MichaelWeston]

Im confused. Weren't these organizations doing just that?

[scharm]

Im confused. Weren't these organizations doing just that?

 

As it relates to the IRS process in place and in question the answer is NO.   Once again the wrong doing by the IRS has already been determined.

 

We are now in the side show phase as it goes through the political process to determine who, when and all the other happy horseshit. 

[scharm]

+1,000 with the emphasis on "engages in political lobbying"...

 

as soon as that practice starts any tax exempt opportunities should go away.

 

You can't have a easy black and white tax code because you then have alot of CPAs, Lawyers, and Public Officials losing out on jobs.

[Jamie_B]

Politial lobbying is the biggest problem we face today imo

[Jamie_B]

Middle ground...

 

 

 

He absolutely nailed it.

[T-Dub]

that is what our constitution is about.

 

Eh.. what?

[scharm]

 

 

He absolutely nailed it.

 

LOL.  It's the same initial defense the EVIL Corporate rulers used in accounting scandals etc. back in the early 2000s.   What's more likely a CEO deliberately mistating profitability or Mid-Management doing stupid stuff in what they think was right for the company?   As the investigation went on the Top Executives were found with more blame and then that led to sweeping financial reporting reform for all public companies.    Most notetably specific declarations from top management about the control environment of their companies and identification of specific penalties to limit the defense of "not knowing" by top executives.

 

It was just those low level IRS employees doing stupid stuff, that I agree was wrong, but there's nothing else to see here.   Anyways they were trying to do what was right.

 

At the very least this scandal deserves the level of investigation as those most identifiable accounting scandals back in the early 00s.  Maybe with a sweeping reform for Government agencies and oversight. 

 

 

Same defense a College Head Coach uses when a star player is caught with some booster money.   First it's a rouge booster.  Then's it is justification because the college player is poor.  Which there has been no shortage of calls for reform in the oversight and treatment of players in college athletics.

[Jamie_B]

By all means investigate, I have no issue with that. However he absolutely nailed it when he said these groups are not above scrutiny and that rather than their name, the agents should have used their actions to scrutinize.

[scharm]

By all means investigate, I have no issue with that. However he absolutely nailed it when he said these groups are not above scrutiny and that rather than their name, the agents should have used their actions to scrutinize.

 

Seems to me more words from that were dedicated to justification of the act vs. the actual issue which is abuse by a government institution no matter at what level it occurred or the interjection of "why" it occurred.

 

He set up a strawman arguement to suggest these groups THINK they are above ANY scrutiny and then charged them all as "highly political".   HIlarious. that could be true or completely unfounded and thus putting them back on trial, I guess.     

 

The issue is they are in FACT above the scrutiny applied by the IRS as he very briefly described those acts as "stupid"  and "wrong". 

 

 

Clear attempt to leave it at the feet of "low level" employees and then mix in some unfounded thoughts suggesting what they were doing was right.   Hard for me to imagine someone who thinks that "nailed" anything is in favor of investigate by all means and has zero issue with it.

 

After the Greed of Corporate evil doers that destroyed employee savings and market trust.   Would you, buy into any defense that would suggest well it was Mid-Management making stupid accounting errors but what they were trying to do was promote shareholder wealth and have it left at that?   I don't think so.

 

 

Would any college athletic  fan simply accept a payment to Reggie Bush as some rouge USC booster that's just trying to help a disadvantaged youth? Come on.

[Homer_Rice]

The "shit rolls downhill and you're living in the valley" defense is common. But that wasn't my major take from McDermott's words. What he said was important with respect to the area between a non political social organization (which would qualify for tax breaks) and explicit political activity (which does not.)

[Jamie_B]

The "shit rolls downhill and you're living in the valley" defense is common. But that wasn't my major take from McDermott's words. What he said was important with respect to the area between a non political social organization (which would qualify for tax breaks) and explicit political activity (which does not.)

 

 

yep

[Jamie_B]

 

Seems to me more words from that were dedicated to justification of the act vs. the actual issue which is abuse by a government institution no matter at what level it occurred or the interjection of "why" it occurred.

 

He set up a strawman arguement to suggest these groups THINK they are above ANY scrutiny and then charged them all as "highly political".   HIlarious. that could be true or completely unfounded and thus putting them back on trial, I guess.     

 

The issue is they are in FACT above the scrutiny applied by the IRS as he very briefly described those acts as "stupid"  and "wrong". 

 

 

Clear attempt to leave it at the feet of "low level" employees and then mix in some unfounded thoughts suggesting what they were doing was right.   Hard for me to imagine someone who thinks that "nailed" anything is in favor of investigate by all means and has zero issue with it.

 

After the Greed of Corporate evil doers that destroyed employee savings and market trust.   Would you, buy into any defense that would suggest well it was Mid-Management making stupid accounting errors but what they were trying to do was promote shareholder wealth and have it left at that?   I don't think so.

 

 

Would any college athletic  fan simply accept a payment to Reggie Bush as some rouge USC booster that's just trying to help a disadvantaged youth? Come on.

 

 

No. They are above scrutiny based on their names, they ARE NOT above scrutiny based on their actions. Me thinks anyone suggesting otherwise has a bias.

 

As far as the corporate side example you would attempt to tie me in on.

 

If there is a company called Fat Cat Bankers I'd be disturbed by that, but they have the right to call themselves whatever they want. If Fat Cat Bankers was engaging in political activity designed to help themselves at the expense of the people, well I'm a bit more extreme in that I'd want them thrown in jail and not just fined.

[scharm]

 

 

No. They are above scrutiny based on their names, they ARE NOT above scrutiny based on their actions. Me thinks anyone suggesting otherwise has a bias.

 

As far as the corporate side example you would attempt to tie me in on.

 

If there is a company called Fat Cat Bankers I'd be disturbed by that, but they have the right to call themselves whatever they want. If Fat Cat Bankers was engaging in political activity designed to help themselves at the expense of the people, well I'm a bit more extreme in that I'd want them thrown in jail and not just fined.

 

He describes the acts of the IRS (which the hearing is about) as foolish managment, stupid and other brief adjectives.   That clearly defines these groups as being above the scrutiny applied by the IRS in this case no matter his or your assumptions of their true actions or intentions. 

 

He then attempts to redirect and takes assumptions about "actions" and even in the 2nd paragraph declares what this is really about.   He interjected politics.  You think he nailed it because he feeds your agenda and bias.

[scharm]

The "shit rolls downhill and you're living in the valley" defense is common. But that wasn't my major take from McDermott's words. What he said was important with respect to the area between a non political social organization (which would qualify for tax breaks) and explicit political activity (which does not.)

 

I'd have to ask why he is offering a defense.  I'd also point out what he said that you determine as important was done at the expense of the actual subject.

 

The title even references IRS signaling out groups.  

[Jamie_B]

 

He describes the acts of the IRS (which the hearing is about) as foolish managment, stupid and other brief adjectives.   That clearly defines these groups as being above the scrutiny applied by the IRS in this case no matter his or your assumptions of their true actions or intentions. 

 

He then attempts to redirect and takes assumptions about "actions" and even in the 2nd paragraph declares what this is really about.   He interjected politics.  You think he nailed it because he feeds your agenda and bias.

 

 

Once again sharm is being disingenuous, which I guess at this point shouldnt surprise me, it's what you do.

 

He clearly states the actions of these political groups should be what should be scrutinized, not their names, and they clearly should, they are not charitible orginizations, one only has to take a look at what they do to see that.

 

There is no bias in that statement, because I dont think unions should be subsidized either. As I said, ALL groups should not be above that kind of scrutiny.

 

No matter how you try to cherry pick the arguement.

[scharm]

 

 

Once again sharm is being disingenuous, which I guess at this point shouldnt surprise me, it's what you do.

 

He clearly states the actions of these political groups should be what should be scrutinized, not their names, and they clearly should, they are not charitible orginizations, one only has to take a look at what they do to see that.

 

There is no bias in that statement, because I dont think unions should be subsidized either. As I said, ALL groups should not be above that kind of scrutiny.

 

No matter how you try to cherry pick the arguement.

 

The judgement of IRS actions are not in question.  It has been determined that these were wrong etc.   He starts off by offering his agreement to that conclusion. 

 

Thus the actual scrutiny applied in the IRS in this case, he agrees that these groups are above.   He actually apologizes to them in the opening paragraph.

 

The IRS has unequivocally made a mistake here. I am sorry your organizations were singled out like this, and while I think this was a case of foolish account management and dangerously careless shortcuts, I will not hesitate to say that the IRS was wrong.

 

 

 

He then attempts to redirect the issue and no doubt leading you to believe he nailed it.   

 

But as I listen to this discussion, I’d like to remind everyone what we are talking about here. None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers would subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break.

 

 

 

In reality what they are talking about is the acts of the IRS that he already confirmed his agreement that they were wrong.       He then tries to diminish the harm done to the groups and then offers his view of their actual motivations or actions.   He then offers up the justification of the IRS referencing Newt.  Charges the groups as being highly political.

 

The issue is a government agency doing what it can to signal out groups. 

 

Talks out of both sides of his mouth.   

[Homer_Rice]

 

I'd have to ask why he is offering a defense.  I'd also point out what he said that you determine as important was done at the expense of the actual subject.

 

The title even references IRS signaling out groups.  

Perhaps because there is some truth to it? In any case, this looks to be shaping up as another whiny Republican screechfest.

[Jamie_B]

 

The judgement of IRS actions are not in question.  It has been determined that these were wrong etc.   He starts off by offering his agreement to that conclusion. 

 

Thus the actual scrutiny applied in the IRS in this case, he agrees that these groups are above.   He actually apologizes to them in the opening paragraph.

 

 

He then attempts to redirect the issue and no doubt leading you to believe he nailed it.   

 

 

In reality what they are talking about is the acts of the IRS that he already confirmed his agreement that they were wrong.       He then tries to diminish the harm done to the groups and then offers his view of their actual motivations or actions.  

 

 

The process in which how the IRS scrutinized them was wrong, the idea that they are above being scrutinized based on their actions rather than their name is high comedy.

 

Its like judging a book by its cover rather than reading it and judging it then. In this case they decided to scrutinize based on the cover of the book, rather than going deeper into it and applying the process that all orginizations going through the process of being scrutinized for this tax exception have to go through. They tried to shortcut their job essentally.

 

I know what I think you believe, but which is more likely here. That a giant coverup has happened and the Obama admin is targeting Tea Party groups (using repubblicans to do so) or that a goverment employee was being lazy?

 

I've worked with enough goverment employees over the years to know you dont have to apply occam's razor to know the answer to that. :lol:

 

But hey if you wish to cherry pick the argument....

[scharm]

Perhaps because there is some truth to it? In any case, this looks to be shaping up as another whiny Republican screechfest.

 

Truth to what?   This basically proves you are looking for a justification vs. a cause/resolution to the issue.    Aren't the hearings supposed to be about the cause/resolution? 

 

The defense is the defense.   If it were low level employees acting alone it shouldn't matter if the violations effected both conservative and liberal groups.   It's a violation of rights.

 

Why is he offering one? 

[Jamie_B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTuH7aAfNCU

[scharm]

 

 

The process in which how the IRS scrutinized them was wrong, the idea that they are above being scrutinized based on their actions rather than their name is high comedy.

 

Its like judging a book by its cover rather than reading it and judging it then. In this case they decided to scrutinize based on the cover of the book, rather than going deeper into it and applying the process that all orginizations going through the process of being scrutinized for this tax exception have to go through. They tried to shortcut their job essentally.

 

I know what I think you believe, but which is more likely here. That a giant coverup has happened and the Obama admin is targeting Tea Party groups (using repubblicans to do so) or that a goverment employee was being lazy?

 

I've worked with enough goverment employees over the years to know you dont have to apply occam's razor to know the answer to that. :lol:

 

But hey if you wish to cherry pick the argument....

 

LIke I said which is more likely at the start of corporate accounting scandals.   CEO purposely cooking the books or a lazy accountant making errors in their process?

 

A true investigation revealed the it was more likely the CEO purposely cooking the books.

 

The article you claim "nailed it" doesn't really seem to be interested in a true investigation of what happened. 

[Jamie_B]

 

LIke I said which is more likely at the start of corporate accounting scandals.   CEO purposely cooking the books or a lazy accountant making errors in their process?

 

A true investigation revealed the it was more likely the CEO purposely cooking the books.

 

The article you claim "nailed it" doesn't really seem to be interested in a true investigation of what happened. 

 

 

Difference between Corporate world and the Goverment lies in the profit motive, which is why your arugment is invalid.

[scharm]

 

 

Difference between Corporate world and the Goverment lies in the profit motive, which is why your arugment is invalid.

 

Hilarious.   Like the Government hasn't been struggling with revenue issues during the time frame of the violations.

 

 

My arguement is for a true investigation.   You once agreed with this.    Are you now saying that is invalid?   You are now willing to accept that it was just low level employees? 

 

Interesting flip flop.   Explain.