IRS Admits They Targeted Conservative Groups

[dawny0826]

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.

I don't think that anyone was painting a picture that this involved a big conspiracy with Obama and I certainly didn't read any of that in Rev's posts. I also haven't read that anyone has been trying to shut down conservative groups.

No doubt, our government has admitted to targeting conservative groups, which they admitted was unwarranted. When IRS issued their statement of apology, they blamed their worker bees for the "insensitivities". These are "low level workers" working out of the Cincinnati office.

The folks on the lower end of the totum pole were pegged as being responsible.

It could have gone either way. Perhaps you had a bunch of dorks who thought they were doing the right thing and this has been blown out of proportion, but, that begs the question...why are so many groups applying for non-profit status if they don't meet the criteria? So, there's still a problem with the IRS.

I find it more believable that someone higher up in the food chain, considering the public apology pushed buttons and snowballed this into action.

As long as something positive comes from this, I don't really care about the applications that would have been denied anyway, because the IRS should have been placing additional time on those applications anyway.

But, they should also adjust their application procedures to ensure that people aren't wasting their time.

Still, the American public deserves a sense of confidence in the work that any government agency is doing for their behalf. And so, I can't fully discount the outcry from those who have been negately impacted.

But, as I've stated, after a while, it is nice to put a lid on the theatrics and focus on the root of the problem and fixing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

From Wikipedia for reference....

The Watergate scandal was a political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s as a result of the June 17, 1972, break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

It is a very specific reference to the "White House Plumbers" acting under the direct orders of the president to break
into DNC offices at the Watergate Hotel. I don't relate it to the current IRS scandal at all, since it would pose 2 problems:
1) I don't believe Obama is directing the malfeasance.
2) Watergate is not about the IRS.
To expand the term "Watergate" to other wrongdoings is inaccurate, & muddies the issues being discussed.
(But adding suffix of "gate" to other scandals is a delicious reference to the fun days of Nixonian fiascos.)

I can't help but see an attempt by some to change the issue from partisan problems with the IRS into blaming
Obama for directly ordering the harrassment simply to create an easily won & distracting straw man argument.
Let me be clear once again....I see no evidence that Obama ordered the IRS to misbehave as they did. I do,
however, hold him responsible as the man in charge of the organization upon which the scandal centers, ie, the IRS.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't think that anyone was painting a picture that this involved a big conspiracy with Obama and I certainly didn't read any of that in Rev's posts. I also haven't read that anyone has been trying to shut down conservative groups.

You and Rev haven't, but that has been the talking points in the media and the outrage I'm hearing from many Republicans.

 

[tytlyf]

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.

Oh yes they are. Which is why people in the right-wing media and GOP congress are making this political and smearing anything and everything. Making a big deal about nothing,.

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.

The IRS isn't playing politics and didn't target these groups based on party. They targeted the groups due to the large influx of new organization applications.

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.

See above comment.

Let's take a look at the list of "scandals" implemented by the GOTP recently.

Benghazi (Obama coverup)
IRS (Politically motivated by Obama)
AP (Obama is taking away your Freedom of speech)

These are all manufactured by right-wing media outlets for political gain. And the more information that comes out in each one, the more stupid the GOTP looks.

 

[Falvlun]

Let's take a look at the list of "scandals" implemented by the GOTP recently.

Benghazi (Obama coverup)
IRS (Politically motivated by Obama)
AP (Obama is taking away your Freedom of speech)

These are all manufactured by right-wing media outlets for political gain. And the more information that comes out in each one, the more stupid the GOTP looks.

In all fairness, I do think the AP story has merit. I am not a fan of all these new intelligence gathering freedoms we've given our gov in the wake of 9/11. Bush implemented them and Obama's taking full advantage and even expanding their use.

But yeah, Benghazi is total manufactured. IRS was an issue, but not nearly as bad as the Right wants it to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

If one views things creatively, no president is ever liable for any scandal.
- Gitmo was a smear of Bush by the Dems.
- Clinton's purjury was a smear by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
- Watergate was a smear of Nixon by Dems.

Tis as though most Americans have no fundamental values except for.....
- If the other side is in power, everything bad is their fault.
- If our side is in power, everything bad is their fault.
- Something is good if our side did it.
- Something is bad if their side did it.

 

[Falvlun]

If one views things creatively, no president is ever liable for any scandal.
- Gitmo was a smear of Bush by the Dems.
- Clinton's purjury was a smear by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
- Watergate was a smear of Nixon by Dems.

Tis as though most Americans have no fundamental values except for.....
- If the other side is in power, everything bad is their fault.
- If our side is in power, everything bad is their fault.
- Something is good if our side did it.
- Something is bad if their side did it.

Gitmo is a smear on both presidents. Most liberals are outraged that Obama hasn't kept his campaign promise to close it.

As for Clinton, it wasn't his perjury that was the smear. That he chose to lie rather than fess up was his own stupid mistake. It was the fact that his sex life was of such interest in the first place-- that was the manufactured scandal. He shouldn't have ever had to have been in a position to perjure himself about something as meaningless as that.

I haven't heard anybody ever try to exonerate Nixon. Nobody likes people who mess with elections.

So, I don't think these examples adequately uphold your hypothesis.

 

[dawny0826]

Oh yes they are. Which is why people in the right-wing media and GOP congress are making this political and smearing anything and everything. Making a big deal about nothing,..

Directly placing blame on the Prez is asinine. But, I don't think that right-wing media is completely off base for spotlighting potential issues. Afterall, the IRS and federal government could have said - "We didn't do anything wrong, just following normal procedure, so, back off." What was issued to the public was more along the lines of a , "We're sorry. We targeted conservative groups and it was "insensitive" and wrong. It's not our fault, really. It's the fault of our "lower level workers" in Cincinnati. We're looking into the issue."

The IRS isn't playing politics and didn't target these groups based on party. They targeted the groups due to the large influx of new organization applications

This boils down to opinion and interpretation of what we receive from the media. You don't know any more than I do as to how this truly panned out. We're both speculating.

I wouldn't consider the flagging of a large influx of new organization applications to be a "target" in the first place. Sounds like good business practice. So, why the public apology?

I think it's important to be flexible to consider the viewpoints from both sides of the equation. I'm with you on the theatrics and smearing. It solves nothing. I'm distrusting that there wasn't something amiss and worth a closer look at.

If no wrong doing was done...don't freaking apologize. Say what you mean and tell the opposition to kiss your behind.

Let's take a look at the list of "scandals" implemented by the GOTP recently.

Benghazi (Obama coverup)
IRS (Politically motivated by Obama)
AP (Obama is taking away your Freedom of speech)

These are all manufactured by right-wing media outlets for political gain. And the more information that comes out in each one, the more stupid the GOTP looks.

I'm not a fan of our nation's media, be it right-wing or more liberal focused. So, I rarely lose sleep over scandal, as I know there's truth and bs to be found in each story.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

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".

Your presumptions make it seem as though pressure was coming from the top down in the decision to scrutinize conservative groups. We don't know at this point if your linked article has any truth to it.

I can see your issue with Schumer/Frankin on the matter but you do realize this president had nothing to do with the current appointee to the IRS? This appointee was from the GWB Administration. But I give this president kudos for taking the steps to deal with the situation. I can't speak on Schumer/Frankin until information/evidence is presented. For now it seems like speculation from the right.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Now do you see why I asked the question I did last night?

 

[dawny0826]

Now do you see why I asked the question I did last night?

I do.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Tis my view as well. You can see by some of the ads being run now...and this here....


Heritage letter to Republicans on Capitol Hill: don’t legislate, just scandalize Obama - Democratic Underground

".......it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference.

To that end, we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference........."

"......Rather than scheduling such legislation for consideration, we urge you to keep the attention focused squarely on the Obama administration."

 

[dawny0826]

It's a letter. Take it for what it's worth.

I don't agree with the full of it, but, what do our politicians expect? If there were "dirty tricks" at hand, do these over paid jerks think they should be able to get off scots free?

This crap is their penance to pay - harassment from opposition.

The government is to blame regardless. If this was genuinely not an issue at all, there was no need to issue a public apology and draw light to an issue that Americans didn't need to hear about. Our stupid media at work and our equally stupid politicians doing the jobs that we pay them to do.

Let them reap what they sew.

 

[Falvlun]

The government is to blame regardless. If this was genuinely not an issue at all, there was no need to issue a public apology and draw light to an issue that Americans didn't need to hear about. Our stupid media at work and our equally stupid politicians doing the jobs that we pay them to do.

Let them reap what they sew.

It was an issue... just not in the way that conservatives, or the average joe that just listens to the media thinks it was.

It would be like if you had a job where you had to sort out bad eggs from good eggs. You notice that the white eggs have a greater tendency to be bad than brown eggs. Your workload then suddenly triples one day, with the greatest influx being more white eggs. Instead of giving all the eggs equal levels of inspection, you now decide just to focus on the white eggs.

The purpose of your policy wasn't to be prejudiced against white eggs, but to do your job in a more expedient manner. The result, however, is that your policy is prejudiced against white eggs.

The way conservatives are trying to spin this is that it was the purpose of the policy to be prejudiced against white eggs, rather than a policy of expediency that had that poorly thought out effect. I think that's an important distinction. The effect of this prejudicial policy still requires an apology, but the policy was not enacted to purposefully be prejudicial.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's a letter. Take it for what it's worth.

I don't agree with the full of it, but, what do our politicians expect? If there were "dirty tricks" at hand, do these over paid jerks think they should be able to get off scots free?

This crap is their penance to pay - harassment from opposition.

The government is to blame regardless. If this was genuinely not an issue at all, there was no need to issue a public apology and draw light to an issue that Americans didn't need to hear about. Our stupid media at work and our equally stupid politicians doing the jobs that we pay them to do.

Let them reap what they sew.

Oh, I agree with you. It was just a letter. But when facing a Primary it can be a powerful letter.

Now I agree that the IRS shouldn't be singling out one group over another but I do believe they need to be aggressive with all groups seeking tax exempt status and I think they need to enforce any laws to make sure organizations continuously adhere to the requirements that meet tax exempt status. Many of the groups seeking this status were granted the status. A liberal group didn't receive theirs. Most likely for good reasons. Some have insinuated the IRS was politically motivated but if you're approving the groups you're supposedly targeting and denying the ones you're not I hardly see political motivation here.....:sad:

 

[tytlyf]

If one views things creatively, no president is ever liable for any scandal.
- Gitmo was a smear of Bush by the Dems.
- Clinton's purjury was a smear by the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".
- Watergate was a smear of Nixon by Dems.

Actual scandals are different than manufactured scandals.

Bush was torturing at Gitmo
Clinton did lie under oath
Nixon was involved in suspicious activity

Now to contrast

Obama did not lie about Benghazi (cover up)
Obama did not tell the IRS to scrutinize conservative groups more than usual
Obama isn't taking freedom of press/speech away when it comes to national security.

We have truths and untruths.

 

[dawny0826]

It was an issue... just not in the way that conservatives, or the average joe that just listens to the media thinks it was.

It would be like if you had a job where you had to sort out bad eggs from good eggs. You notice that the white eggs have a greater tendency to be bad than brown eggs. Your workload then suddenly triples one day, with the greatest influx being more white eggs. Instead of giving all the eggs equal levels of inspection, you now decide just to focus on the white eggs.

The purpose of your policy wasn't to be prejudiced against white eggs, but to do your job in a more expedient manner. The result, however, is that your policy is prejudiced against white eggs.

The way conservatives are trying to spin this is that it was the purpose of the policy to be prejudiced against white eggs, rather than a policy of expediency that had that poorly thought out effect. I think that's an important distinction. The effect of this prejudicial policy still requires an apology, but the policy was not enacted to purposefully be prejudicial.

I've already acknowledged this in conversations with Alceste on this thread. I get you and understand that it very well could have panned out this way.

Why a public apology, admitting fault if there wasn't fault? Why drag your employees under the bus, if they were just doing their job and doing their jobs accurately? That wasn't the public admission.

 

[tytlyf]

Gitmo is a smear on both presidents. Most liberals are outraged that Obama hasn't kept his campaign promise to close it.

I didn't vote for Obama based on his promises. Although the reason he backed off his executive order concerning Gitmo is interesting. He has restated recently to close it, but that will depend on Al Qaeda and Yemen.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why a public apology, admitting fault if there wasn't fault? Why drag your employees under the bus, if they were just doing their job and doing their jobs accurately? That wasn't the public admission.

Because they were wrong in the "way" they scrutinized these groups. They weren't "for" scrutinizing these groups. The apology came from the people in charge and not the people conducting the scrutiny.

 

[dawny0826]

Oh, I agree with you. It was just a letter. But when facing a Primary it can be a powerful letter.

Now I agree that the IRS shouldn't be singling out one group over another but I do believe they need to be aggressive with all groups seeking tax exempt status and I think they need to enforce any laws to make sure organizations continuously adhere to the requirements that meet tax exempt status. Many of the groups seeking this status were granted the status. A liberal group didn't receive theirs. Most likely for good reasons. Some have insinuated the IRS was politically motivated but if you're approving the groups you're supposedly targeting and denying the ones you're not I hardly see political motivation here.....:sad:

Again, perhaps at the level where this was taking place, there really wasn't political motivation. I can totally see that it may have actually panned out that way.

So, as I've stated, my problem then would moreso be with the ridiculous apology that's opened an unnecessary can of worms and has placed the IRS and Obama Administration under scrutiny. Stabs from opposition is par for the course, be it warranted or not.