Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 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. No I still am fine with an investigation, I think that is completely ok. I'm saying your argument that the Government and Corporations are the same completely ignores that Corporations have a profit motive that Goverments do not. The fact you talk about revenue, and attempt to draw comparisons, makes me question if you understand what the profit motive even is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 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? Are you obtuse? Which rights have been violated? It isn't a right to claim tax-exemption if you are not eligible for it according to the law. And even if you are eligible according to the law, it isn't a right, it's a matter of positive law. Further, hasn't one high level IRS bureaucrat been canned over this? And didn't that happen pretty quickly? Say, more quickly than it would take to replace a CEO? And lastly, to quote one scholar of American History: "Ooh, e, ooh, ah, ah, bing, bang, walla walla ping pang." I daresay I don't need to repeat that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 No I still am fine with an investigation, I think that is completely ok. I'm saying your argument that the Government and Corporations are the same completely ignores that Corporations have a profit motive that Goverments do not. The fact you talk about revenue, and attempt to draw comparisons, makes me question if you understand what the profit motive even is. Governments have revenue motivations. They also operate under budgets. Are you trying to deny this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Governments have revenue motivations. They also operate under budgets. Are you trying to deny this? Revenue motiviations and The Proffit Motive are not the same thing. So either you are disingenuous or maybe I am giving you too much credit and you are as Homer suggested, obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Are you obtuse? Which rights have been violated? It isn't a right to claim tax-exemption if you are not eligible for it according to the law. And even if you are eligible according to the law, it isn't a right, it's a matter of positive law. Further, hasn't one high level IRS bureaucrat been canned over this? And didn't that happen pretty quickly? Say, more quickly than it would take to replace a CEO? And lastly, to quote one scholar of American History: "Ooh, e, ooh, ah, ah, bing, bang, walla walla ping pang." I daresay I don't need to repeat that. and does that IRS Bureacurat get a golden parachue when he leaves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Are you obtuse? Which rights have been violated? It isn't a right to claim tax-exemption if you are not eligible for it according to the law. And even if you are eligible according to the law, it isn't a right, it's a matter of positive law. Further, hasn't one high level IRS bureaucrat been canned over this? And didn't that happen pretty quickly? Say, more quickly than it would take to replace a CEO? And lastly, to quote one scholar of American History: "Ooh, e, ooh, ah, ah, bing, bang, walla walla ping pang." I daresay I don't need to repeat that. Maybe you should read the article again. Didn't you link this article? Freedom of speech is, no doubt, one of most important fundamental rights. It is unacceptable in every way for a government agency to unfairly scrutinize any organization because of their political affiliations. 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. So what do you know that Mr. McDermott doesn't know? If violation of rights isn't an issue then why is he addressing them, smart guy? The appointment and removal of a CEO is dependent on the board. Which can act very quickly or take their time as they see fit. The Inspector General report was concluded well before the removal of the high ranking IRS official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Revenue motiviations and The Proffit Motive are not the same thing. So either you are disingenuous or maybe I am giving you too much credit and you are as Homer suggested, obtuse. I never declared them to be the same thing. Motivations whether you classify them as profit or revenue are still motivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I never declared them to be the same thing. Motivations whether you classify them as profit or revenue are still motivations. Yes and the difference between existing vs more than existing. Which is exactly why your argument drawing comparisons between the two is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 and does that IRS Bureacurat get a golden parachue when he leaves? Alot of the executives involved in the accounting scandals underwent investigative hearings and criminal charges. Shouldn't the IRS Bureacurat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Yes and the difference between existing vs more than existing. Which is exactly why your argument drawing comparisons between the two is invalid. Nah. It's valid. My arguement is for full investigation. I think you've agreed with that. My reasoning is the defense being provided for the IRS scandal reminds me of the initial defense in the corporate accounting scandals and often used defenses in NCAA recruiting violations. Often deeper investigations prove out the initial defense as false. What is your reasoning for wanting a full investigation and how would you say the article that you claimed "nailed it" really support that? I don't think that article or Mr. McDermott statements do that. I think it's a clear bait and switch tatic trying to move focus to the victims vs. the act that everyone declares as wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Maybe you should read the article again. Didn't you link this article? So what do you know that Mr. McDermott doesn't know? If violation of rights isn't an issue then why is he addressing them, smart guy? The appointment and removal of a CEO is dependent on the board. Which can act very quickly or take their time as they see fit. The Inspector General report was concluded well before the removal of the high ranking IRS official. Lol. Yes, I read it. Bonus: I actually understood it, too. “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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Alot of the executives involved in the accounting scandals underwent hearing and criminal charges. Shouldn't the IRS Bureacurat? I believe I've said (twice now) I have no issue with an investigation, frankly it might have been fair to do before firing said Bureacurat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 scharm, on 05 Jun 2013 - 2:44 PM, said: Nah. It's valid. My arguement is for full investigation. I think you've agreed with that. My reasoning is the defense being provided for the IRS scandal reminds me of the initial defense in the corporate accounting scandals and often used defenses in NCAA recruiting violations. What is your reasoning for wanting a full investigation and how would say the article that you claimed "nailed it" really support that? I don't think that article does or Mr. McDermott statements do that. I think it's a clear bait and switch tatic trying to move focus to the victims vs. the act that everyone declares as wrong. No it isnt valid, essentally whats going on here I've said this is an apple, and this is an orange. And you've said...well fruit is fruit. It's actually comical because I dont think you truely believe it, however if you do, it's almost sad. My reason for being ok with an investigation is that I'm ok with looking into how to better the process so that it doesnt happen again. As opposed to some political witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Lol. Yes, I read it. Bonus: I actually understood it, too. I think Sharm is smarter than he is letting on here, I think he understands it, he's just the most disingenuous person on this board. Or if your right, one of the most stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Lol. Yes, I read it. Bonus: I actually understood it, too. As noted before Homer I thought it was nice the Mr. McDermott offered his own opinion on if thier rights were violated although that is not the purpose of the hearing. The actual issue is the act that he declared wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I believe I've said (twice now) I have no issue with an investigation, frankly it might have been fair to do before firing said Bureacurat. Great. I liked to know why or how you think that article "nailed it" if you have no issue with an investigation. IMO, the comments made by Mr. McDermott looked to justify the current defense being offered, diminish the harm to the groups, and justify the acts that he declared as wrong. Would you agree with this or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Great. I liked to know why or how you think that article "nailed it" if you have no issue with an investigation. IMO, the comments made by Mr. McDermott looked to justify the current defense being offered, diminish the harm to the groups, and justify the acts that he declared as wrong. Would you agree with this or not? Oh I dont know, because the notion that political groups such as these should be subject to the same level of scrutinization as all other groups applying for the credit, seems to me to be a legitimate notion, and as such an invesigation into why the person who did this wasnt applying the same level of scrutinization rather taking a shortcut based on their names needs to be found out. I mean if they dont we might have a group in the future with a name like Plutocrats for the Poor, who might not be on the up and up. ;) Now would you agree that the same level of scrutinization should be applied accross the board or are you arguing there should be no scrutinization at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Oh I dont know, because the notion that political groups such as these should be subject to the same level of scrutinization as all other groups applying for the credit, seems to me to be a legitimate notion, and as such an invesigation into why the person who did this wasnt applying the same level of scrutinization rather taking a shortcut based on their names needs to be found out. I mean if they dont we might have a group in the future with a name like Plutocrats for the Poor, who might not be on the up and up. ;) Now would you agree that the same level of scrutinization should be applied accross the board or are you arguing there should be no scrutinization at all? I believe we are hear because the IRS didn't apply the same level of scrutinization. This was found out by an indenpendent report. Confirmed by the IRS with members of both parties agreeing that it was wrong. I am for an investigation to find out why and how. I think the above comments show your bias. I believe the comments you think "Nailed it" play to your bias and don't help the path of investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 I believe we are hear because the IRS didn't apply the same level of scrutinization. This was found out by an indenpendent report. Confirmed by the IRS with members of both parties agreeing that it was wrong. I am for an investigation to find out why and how. I think the above comments show your bias. I believe the comments you think "Nailed it" play to your bias and don't help the path of investigation. No they didnt, they should have been more thorough with these groups accross both political spectrums, as it has been shown it wasnt done to just one side of the isle. Which is why I am also for a investigation into why they werent being as thorough as they should have needs to happen. I think the fact that you cant seem to grasp that these groups were indeed engaging in things that really have nothing to do with tax-exempt status and acting as if they are victims in the sense that they didnt deserve scrutinization shows yours. They absolutely deserved the same level of scrutinization as every other group, and that's why McDermant nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 No they didnt, they should have been more thorough with these groups accross both political spectrums, as it has been shown it wasnt done to just one side of the isle. Which is why I am also for a investigation into why they werent being as thorough as they should have needs to happen. I think the fact that you cant seem to grasp that these groups were indeed engaging in things that really have nothing to do with tax-exempt status and acting as if they are victims in the sense that they didnt deserve scrutinization shows yours. They absolutely deserved the same level of scrutinization as every other group, and that's why McDermant nailed it. Your confused. First you say they should have been more thorough across both political spectrums and then point to it wasn't done to just one side of the isle. Well, OK. Explain that one a little further. Again, the IRS was found to be wrong in their procedures. Your opinion on whether the groups affected are victims or not is invalid. Thus that's why you think Mr. McDermott nailed it. He absolutely talks out of both sides of his mouth. 1. He agrees that it was wrong. 2. He then goes and justifies it. Hilarious. Exactly what you attempted above. If they aren't victims then how are the procedures determined to be wrong or in error? Being wrong and in error caused some level of harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 As noted before Homer I thought it was nice the Mr. McDermott offered his own opinion on if thier rights were violated although that is not the purpose of the hearing. The actual issue is the act that he declared wrong. I don't think anyone disputes that there was some impropriety here. Although, and as I posted before, perhaps not as much impropriety as initally hollered about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Your confused. First you say they should have been more thorough across both political spectrums and then point to it wasn't done to just one side of the isle. Well, OK. Explain that one a little further. Again, the IRS was found to be wrong in their procedures. Your opinion on whether the groups affected are victims or not is invalid. Thus that's why you think Mr. McDermott nailed it. He absolutely talks out of both sides of his mouth. 1. He agrees that it was wrong. 2. He then goes and justifies it. Hilarious. Exactly what you attempted above. If they aren't victims then how are the procedures determined to be wrong or in error? Being wrong and in error caused some level of harm. Yes their procedures should have been more thorough than "does name sound controversial" that is the impropriety here. Not that there should be no procedure in place for scrutinization. Example: Teacher asks class to do a book report. This IRS Agent rather than reading the book and doing the report on what he read, bought the cliff notes and did a report on the cliff notes. THAT is the impropriety, not that the student shouldnt have not at all read the damned book. Which seems to be what you are arguing. You seem to think that no group should be scrutinized when applying for tax-exempt status. McDermott nails in in appologizing that they shouldn't have been handled in such a sloppy manner, and further nails it saying they should have been more thouough. What harm? They were not prevented from orginizaing nor were their actions prevented, they simply were taken a shortcut with because of their names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Politial lobbying is the biggest problem we face today imo Its campaign finance and lobbying by a mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 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. Scharm, the problem is that the law as written said that in order to qualify, the organization had to be "EXCLUSIVELY" involved in social education, but was later changed to "PRIMARILY". "Primarily" opened this can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted June 5, 2013 Report Share Posted June 5, 2013 Yes their procedures should have been more thorough than "does name sound controversial" that is the impropriety here. Not that there should be no procedure in place for scrutinization. Example: Teacher asks class to do a book report. This IRS Agent rather than reading the book and doing the report on what he read, bought the cliff notes and did a report on the cliff notes. THAT is the impropriety, not that the student shouldnt have not at all read the damned book. Which seems to be what you are arguing. You seem to think that no group should be scrutinized when applying for tax-exempt status. McDermott nails in in appologizing that they shouldn't have been handled in such a sloppy manner, and further nails it saying they should have been more thouough. What harm? They were not prevented from orginizaing nor were their actions prevented, they simply were taken a shortcut with because of their names. The no scrutinization part you are agreeing with is a strawman arguement and an unfounded statement by Mr. McDerrmott. At the time saying it he even describes as his feeling. The last part is hilarious. Obiviously the pure nature of applying for an exempt status has benefits that appeal to groups that apply for it. It has already been determined and Mr. McDermott has agreed with conclusion the IRS was wrong. They were prevented the benefit allowed by law. The justification of the IRS actions is invalid. Mr. McDermott and other Representatives have agreed to the wrong doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.