IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[Dirty Penguin]

Then, why the public admittance that they screwed up?

Because the ones admitting they screwed up weren't the ones that initiated the scrutiny. The other day I apologize to a woman for something my grand daughter did. I didn't tell my grand daughter to do it and once I found out what she did..I apologized to the lady. What my grand daughter I had no part in but ultimately it was a reflection on me and up to me to take responsibility.

I'm not particularly into the theatrics myself. But, I do feel for the people who are genuine when submitting that application and are then subjected to bull from the IRS. It's an issue of trust. It's not as if this government organization is one that most of us have an extraordinary amount of confidence in and love for anyway.

I can agree here and I see your point...but you certainly can't let your guard down. We have enough tax evaders in this country. If the IRS is going to scrutinize than the rules should apply equally. Personally I have an issue with repub or dems applying for 501c(4) tax exempt status but that is something the IRS is going to have to workout.

I assure you that I do not discriminate when it comes to my disdain for big government, be it on the local, state or federal level.

This can we can agree on....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't buy it. The full sentence from which you so craftily extracted that text reads.....

I see a very different meaning than what you deliberately portray otherwise. I describe a situation, which includes the president. You seek to make it solely about the president, ie, a straw man.

Now, what would a reasonable person deduce about your intent, when you repeatedly misrepresent what I said, despite being informed of the 'error'?

Then what did you mean by...."Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS."

 

[4consideration]

Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS.

Sorry to butt in guys, but it's painful to watch this. I think this is a misunderstanding.

I really don't mean to be offensive to anyone on this thread. Revoltingest I hope that you don't mind my explaining what this sentence means, so that I can go to sleep.

"Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate with the IRS."

means

Perhaps it is the pressure from prominent members of the same party that is the party of the president that created a partisan climate within the IRS.

To read that sentence to be saying that sentence means ANYTHING about the president other than the president is in the same party as those that may be applying pressure -- is to misread the sentence. The subject is pressure.

To leave out the subject of the sentence in the quote changes the meaning of the sentence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry to butt in guys, but it's painful to watch this. I think this is a misunderstanding.
I really don't mean to be offensive to anyone on this thread. Revoltingest I hope that you don't mind my explaining what this sentence means, so that I can go to sleep.
"Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate with the IRS."
means
Perhaps it is the pressure from prominent members of the same party that is the party of the president that created a partisan climate within the IRS.
To read that sentence to be saying that sentence means ANYTHING about the president other than the president is in the same party as those that may be applying pressure -- is to misread the sentence. The subject is pressure.
To leave out the subject of the sentence in the quote changes the meaning of the sentence.

Your explanation is quite clear & appreciated.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sorry to butt in guys, but it's painful to watch this. I think this is a misunderstanding.

I really don't mean to be offensive to anyone on this thread. Revoltingest I hope that you don't mind my explaining what this sentence means, so that I can go to sleep.

"Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate with the IRS."

means

Perhaps it is the pressure from prominent members of the same party that is the party of the president that created a partisan climate within the IRS.

To read that sentence to be saying that sentence means ANYTHING about the president other than the president is in the same party as those that may be applying pressure -- is to misread the sentence. The subject is pressure.

To leave out the subject of the sentence in the quote changes the meaning of the sentence.

If that is what is meant by the sentence then I'm satisfied. I was trying to be very respectful in the way I asked the question because I genuinely didn't understand what was meant.......:clap

 

[dawny0826]

Because the ones admitting they screwed up weren't the ones that initiated the scrutiny. The other day I apologize to a woman for something my grand daughter did. I didn't tell my grand daughter to do it and once I found out what she did..I apologized to the lady. What my grand daughter I had no part in but ultimately it was a reflection on me and up to me to take responsibility.

Okay. I'm with you, here.

I can agree here and I see your point...but you certainly can't let your guard down. We have enough tax evaders in this country. If the IRS is going to scrutinize than the rules should apply equally. Personally I have an issue with repub or dems applying for 501c(4) tax exempt status but that is something the IRS is going to have to workout.

I don't disagree with you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then what did you mean by...."Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS."

We're finally getting somewhere.
First, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about the relationship between the IRS & the prez....

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (or IRS Commissioner) is the head of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),[1] a bureau within the United States Department of the Treasury.[2] The office of Commissioner was created by Congress by the Revenue Act of 1862.[3] The Commissioner is appointed by the President, with the consent of the Senate, for a five-year term.[4]

This is why I refer to the prez as the ultimate boss of the IRS.
Now, consider that prominent Democrats (eg, Franken, as claimed in the linked article) in Congress are pressuring the IRS to challenge groups perceived as conservative when they apply for 501 (c) (4) status. What is an IRS apparatchik to think about his/her job when political allies of the boss demand partisan action? I called this "pressure", aka "undue influence".

Some say this matters not, since the Tea Party deserves more challenges than others. Others scoff at paying any attention to a de minimis violation which was cured by an apology. But I see a structural flaw in the system, ie, that the IRS has great power over those who receive tax deductable contributions to advance their political causes. Such a matter deserves more serious & sincere attention than it has received.

 

[dawny0826]

There is this possibility...
Schumer, Franken urged IRS to target tea party in 2012 | The Daily Caller
Perhaps pressure from prominent members of the same party as their ultimate boss (the prez) created a partisan climate within the IRS.

This makes more sense than the other explanation offered....
IRS Scandal: Steven Miller Apologizes For 'Mistakes' To Congress After His Dismissal
If it were really about coping with an increased work load, then to intensify the approval process & even begin audits (eg, thorough records reviews) of some applicants would exacerbate their stated problem.

Presidents establish climate. But, I'm still of the opinion that someone, be it a politician or a cheese within the IRS pushes the buttons and says, "do it", and it ain't the prez.

I don't think the worker bees decided to just make more work themselves, personally.

The IRS has issued a public apology, followed by the Obama Administration, so I imagine what will or at least should result from these shenanigans, is a better application process for non-profit application, which might benefit those who are legitimately seeking non-profit status and meets the criteria. These are the peeps that I care about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Presidents establish climate. But, I'm still of the opinion that someone, be it a politician or a cheese within the IRS pushes the buttons and says, "do it", and it ain't the prez.

I agree generally, but it isn't always the case, eg, Nixon's direct involvement.
(Note: I am not saying that Obama is as culpable as Nixon was.)

I don't think the worker bees decided to just make more work themselves, personally.

I agree.

The IRS has issued a public apology, followed by the Obama Administration, so I imagine what will or at least should result from these shenanigans, is a better application process for non-profit application, which might benefit those who are legitimately seeking non-profit status and qualify. These are the peeps that I care about.

This is at best a temporary fix, since congressional scrutiny will improve things....until they lose interest, & then the system is
ripe for the same mischief. It's a structural problem, which points towards an overhaul of the tax system as the only real solution.

 

[dawny0826]

I agree generally, but it isn't always the case, eg, Nixon's direct involvement.
(Note: I am not saying that Obama is as culpable as Nixon was.)

I agree.


This is at best a temporary fix, since congressional scrutiny will improve things....until they lose interest, & then the system is
ripe for the same mischief. It's a structural problem, which points towards an overhaul of the tax system as the only real solution.

I'll be the first to admit that I'd have to research Nixon's issues. That was before my time. And I think you know the basic jist as to the type of change that I'm hoping for America.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll be the first to admit that I'd have to research Nixon's issues. That was before my time. And I think you know the basic jist as to the type of change that I'm hoping for America.

I respect your goals.

Btw, Nixon was one very strange bird.
I think it was Mort Sahl who described him as a low potential high achiever.
I thought he was a very left leaning right winger.

 

[dawny0826]

I respect your goals.

Btw, Nixon was one very strange bird.
He was described as a low potential high achiever.

The only thing I know about Nixon is that he had a really large head.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only thing I know about Nixon is that he had a really large head.

It's cuz he was well enjowled.

The man had a mean streak, but he did end the military draft. (Good can be found in unexpected places.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unau2Efldqk

PS
I'm struck by how things remembered which are so significant to me are so foreign to young
& productive types. I'll have to stay aware of how arcane or strange I must seem to others.

 

[dawny0826]

It's cuz he was well enjowled.

The man had a mean streak, but he did end the military draft. (Good can be found in unexpected places.)
[youtube]Unau2Efldqk[/youtube]
Futurama: Fall Dammit Fall! - YouTube

PS
I'm struck by how things remembered which are so significant to me are so foreign to young
& productive types. I'll have to stay aware of how arcane or strange I must seem to others.

You don't seem arcane or strange. Just reminds the younger lot of us that a refresh on history lessons is often beneficial to appreciate the bigger picture of debate.

For example, this snippet from the lovely www.wikipedia.org, does, in my opinion, reiterate the point you were making earlier about how a president establishes "climate". I better understand your position.

It would be nice if people would grow skin and do the right thing. That's the problem with our government and the agencies therein. Though, I tire of theatrical stories on the news, I understand robust outcry to a degree. Afterall, this, below, isn't okay. Whoever/whatever pulled strings to push unfair practices at the IRS recently was abusing power. Dirty tricks is an abuse of power on any level within our government.

The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration. Those activities included "dirty tricks" such as bugging the offices of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his officials were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides ordered harassment of activist groups and political figures, using the FBI, CIA, and the Internal Revenue Service. The activities became known after five men were caught breaking into Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972. The Washington Post picked up on the story; reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward relied on an informant known as "Deep Throat"—later revealed to be Mark Felt, associate director at the FBI—to link the men to the Nixon administration. Nixon downplayed the scandal as mere politics, calling news articles biased and misleading. As a series of revelations made it clear that Nixon aides had committed crimes in attempts to sabotage the Democrats and others, senior aides such as White House Counsel John Dean and Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman faced prosecution.[104][191][192]

We give these turds too much power.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't seem arcane or strange. Just reminds the younger lot of us that a refresh on history lessons is often beneficial to appreciate the bigger picture of debate.

What a generous & diplomatic way to call me a cranky old fart!

It would be nice if people would grow skin and do the right thing. That's the problem with our government and the agencies therein. Though, I tire of theatrical stories on the news, I understand robust outcry to a degree. Afterall, this, below, isn't okay. Whoever/whatever pulled strings to push unfair practices at the IRS recently was abusing power. Dirty tricks is an abuse of power on any level within our government.
We give these turds too much power.

Alas, it's inherent in government that individuals & associations will wield vast power. But if we design the system such that incentives encourage just use of it, we'll fare better. I favor more prosecutions of wrongdoing by the high & mighty, who usually get off by mere banishment from office. (Nixon & others should've seen the inside of a jail cell.) It's also why I urge divorcing tax enforcement from political advocacy.

I'm guessing that there's more widespread agreement about these fundamentals than the rancorous public discourse would suggest.

 

[Falvlun]

From the quote in Dawny's post #154:

The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration. Those activities included "dirty tricks" such as bugging the offices of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his officials were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides ordered harassment of activist groups and political figures, using the FBI, CIA, and the Internal Revenue Service.

I rolled (perhaps erroneously?) that under the heading of "Watergate" since Watergate was the catalyst of his impeachment and I assumed his IRS shenanigans were a part of that, rather than a separate issue.

Perhaps not so erroneously after all.

 

[Falvlun]

The IRS has issued a public apology, followed by the Obama Administration, so I imagine what will or at least should result from these shenanigans, is a better application process for non-profit application, which might benefit those who are legitimately seeking non-profit status and meets the criteria. These are the peeps that I care about.

Exactly. I hope so too.

This is at best a temporary fix, since congressional scrutiny will improve things....until they lose interest, & then the system is
ripe for the same mischief. It's a structural problem, which points towards an overhaul of the tax system as the only real solution.

my bolding

Couldn't agree more. Our government truly is the definition of insane-- doing the same thing over and over again and somehow magically expecting a better result than the last time. Time to uproot these weeds and replant something else.

 

[tytlyf]

This is what I make of this "scandal."
The President didn't know about it until recently
There was an influx of organization applications which created the scrutiny.
As mentioned in my first response, big deal, it happens to everyone.
The Obama Admin may have known about it months earlier and never told the President.
If the IRS apologized for the extra scrutiny, they weren't saying they shouldn't have done it.
And more..
I think what this is with the latest 'scandals' we've been seeing is to really smear the democrats prior to the 2014 mid terms. All these manufactured scandals are just that, manufactured.

 

[Falvlun]

This is what I make of this "scandal."
The President didn't know about it until recently
There was an influx of organization applications which created the scrutiny.
As mentioned in my first response, big deal, it happens to everyone.
The Obama Admin may have known about it months earlier and never told the President.
If the IRS apologized for the extra scrutiny, they weren't saying they shouldn't have done it.
And more..
I think what this is with the latest 'scandals' we've been seeing is to really smear the democrats prior to the 2014 mid terms. All these manufactured scandals are just that, manufactured.

That about sums it up for me too.

Was it a problem? Sure. But I'm not seeing some big conspiracy here with Obama, or even the IRS, attempting to shut down conservative groups. I see a bad sorting system put into place that was disproportionately biased against conservative groups precisely because they were the majority of groups sending in new, fishy applications.

 

[dawny0826]

This is what I make of this "scandal."
The President didn't know about it until recently
There was an influx of organization applications which created the scrutiny.
As mentioned in my first response, big deal, it happens to everyone.
The Obama Admin may have known about it months earlier and never told the President.
If the IRS apologized for the extra scrutiny, they weren't saying they shouldn't have done it.
And more..
I think what this is with the latest 'scandals' we've been seeing is to really smear the democrats prior to the 2014 mid terms. All these manufactured scandals are just that, manufactured.

I don't think that anyone is accusing the President of being directly involved. The point presented is that a President establishes climate which may influence others to push for such scrutiny.

My challenge to your comments above is the "not a big deal" approach. Manufactured or not, it's not okay for our government, when the American people are paying for them to do a job for us, to screw up or to play dirty against opposing politics at our expense.

Additionally, it is a big deal as these questionable "conservative" groups are not the only people submitting applications for non-profit status and may not be the only groups unfairly scrutinized when applying for non-profit status.

This has consistently been my greatest concern. You can speculate and you may even be correct. But, what we have is an apology issued by the IRS and supported by the Obama Administration, admitting to wrongful and unfair review/screening of applications.

For many Americans, this is viewed as an abuse of power and it's not okay. I hope that better practices result from this. But, I am not okay with my tax dollars being applied towards dirty practice. I think we're too top heavy as is in government.