Obama's IRS Targeted the Tea Party

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the odds that it wasn't partisan aren't bad. -spence

According to the Inspector General report, "IRS’s scrutiny went beyond keywords to target ideology.”

So according to the inspector general (who probably knows almost as much about this as you do), ideology was the basis for IRS targeting. The Denver Post ran that on their front page.

Still think there's good odds that it wasn't political?

There's no evidence that Obama had anything to do with this. But any child knows it was political.

Read more: Media can't ignore Obama IRS, Benghazi scandals | Fox News

[Raider Ronnie]

Yup

[justplugit]

WTH is this, IRS employees have received $92,million in bonuses since 2009 under the new Administration?
Interesting, for what, showing up for work? Since when did Government workers
receive tax payer bonuses, what was the target they had to exceed to get one?

According to one report, 16,900 employees got them including Commissioner
Byrd $60,270 and Lois Lerner, head of tax exempt dept $42,900.

Who in this Administration came up with this idea, why and what were their goals?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So according to the inspector general (who probably knows almost as much about this as you do), ideology was the basis for IRS targeting. The Denver Post ran that on their front page.

Still think there's good odds that it wasn't political?

You think they were out to stick it to the Tea Party?

Evidence so far just makes it look like an overburdened group was trying to be efficient. That they were targeting ideology doesn't mean it was political...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You think they were out to stick it to the Tea Party?

Evidence so far just makes it look like an overburdened group was trying to be efficient. That they were targeting ideology doesn't mean it was political...

-spence

"You think they were out to stick it to the Tea Party?"

I think that's established fact at this point...that's what the IRS admitted, and it's why the interim director of the IRS got the axe.

"look like an overburdened group was trying to be efficient. "

They sought efficiency by flagging applications that had the words "tea party" in them. So you're saying the temporry head of the IRS got fired, because his employees were trying to be "efficient". That makes tons of sense.

This is probably the most absurd, dishonest thing you have ever posted. The IRS is admitting the bias, but you still won't admit it.

That's a nice culture of intolerance implemented by Obama. Republicans sit in the back of the bus, punish your enemies, conservatives cling to guns and religion because we are bitter and racist...are these the sentiments you want in a President?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You think they were out to stick it to the Tea Party?"

I think that's established fact at this point...that's what the IRS admitted, and it's why the interim director of the IRS got the axe.

"look like an overburdened group was trying to be efficient. "

They sought efficiency by flagging applications that had the words "tea party" in them. So you're saying the temporry head of the IRS got fired, because his employees were trying to be "efficient". That makes tons of sense.

This is probably the most absurd, dishonest thing you have ever posted. The IRS is admitting the bias, but you still won't admit it.

That's a nice culture of intolerance implemented by Obama. Republicans sit in the back of the bus, punish your enemies, conservatives cling to guns and religion because we are bitter and racist...are these the sentiments you want in a President?

The IRS has never admitted their actions were politically motivated. You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The IRS has never admitted their actions were politically motivated. You don't seem to be able to grasp the difference.

-spence

Spence, if the IRS' motives for targeting the Tea Party were not political, please tell me what they were. Is it because the IRS likes the Red Sox, and the Tea Party likes the Yankees? Is that what it was?

Why do you suppose the IRS flagged applications based on the words "tea party", and not on the words "hooray abortion" or "gimme gimme gimme"? Good luck with that...

[Nebe]

Their motives were due to the fact that the tea party is anti government anti taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, if the IRS' motives for targeting the Tea Party were not political, please tell me what they were. Is it because the IRS likes the Red Sox, and the Tea Party likes the Yankees? Is that what it was?

Why do you suppose the IRS flagged applications based on the words "tea party", and not on the words "hooray abortion" or "gimme gimme gimme"? Good luck with that...

They targeted the Tea Party because it was easy.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The IRS is admitting the bias, but you still won't admit it.

JIM, this has to be Spence playing the Devil's Advocate here, it's the only possible explanation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Their motives were due to the fact that the tea party is anti government anti taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I consider myself a tea partier. We are not anti-government, nor are we anti-taxes.

We opposed to stupid, wasteful spending, which results in exorbitant taxes.

Nebe, you are being grossly misled by whomever you get your information from. Tea partiers believe in reasonable tax levels, from which the money should be spent wisely, to help as many people as possible. Despite how hard you or Spence might try, there is nothing sinister, selfish, or greedy about that. What's sinister is the feds taking obscene amounts of money from us (most of it borrowed from the Chinese)which serves no purpose, other than to enrich politically-connected friends of politicians.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I consider myself a tea partier. We are not anti-government, nor are we anti-taxes.

We opposed to stupid, wasteful spending, which results in exorbitant taxes.

Nebe, you are being grossly misled by whomever you get your information from. Tea partiers believe in reasonable tax levels, from which the money should be spent wisely, to help as many people as possible. Despite how hard you or Spence might try, there is nothing sinister, selfish, or greedy about that. What's sinister is the feds taking obscene amounts of money from us (most of it borrowed from the Chinese)which serves no purpose, other than to enrich politically-connected friends of politicians.

And yet you are a bush supporter?! LOLOLOLOLOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

And yet you are a bush supporter?! LOLOLOLOLOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, you seem to really think you got me there, don't you. Chortle, chortle!! You got me all right!! Except you didn't. Not even close...

George Bush made blunders as they all do, and he added much to our debt. But what did he accomplish?

He built an anti-terror infastructure from scratch. By any standard, that structure has been a success. Obama certainly has left it largely intact, so Obama thinks it works.

He is credited with saving more than one million lives in Africa, for his work with AIDS. If I have to postpone retirement for a few months to pay my taxes for that endeavor, I say "sign me up!"

He liberated Iraq. Obviously, that wasn't the stated mission of the war, but the fact is, he freed a nation of Muslims from other, monstrous Muslims.

That's some of what Bush did.

Obama added trillions more to the debt than Bush did, and he hasn't done nearly as much good for nearly as many people.

Nebe, you tell me...where am I wrong?

I told you I'm against stupid waste. I just don't see that Bush pissed away trillions...if you think he did, tell that to the million Africans he saved.

Obama spent almost a trillion on a stimulus, and what do we have to show? No meaningful change in unemployment, and a huge decrease in median wages. Not a wise investment in my book.

Nebe, go ahead. Tell me where I'm wrong.

[buckman]

The woman who is an absolute charge I believe her name is Sarah Ingram, has been promoted to be in charge of the Obamacare division of the IRS. While in charge of nonprofits at the IRS she received an average of $35,000 a year bonuses....bonuses that could only be approved by the Pres.
She will now be in charge of approving health care decisions.
Thank God none of this was politically motivated
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

The woman who is an absolute charge I believe her name is Sarah Ingram, has been promoted to be in charge of the Obamacare division of the IRS. While in charge of nonprofits at the IRS she received an average of $35,000 a year bonuses....bonuses that could only be approved by the Pres.
She will now be in charge of approving health care decisions.
Thank God none of this was politically motivated
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obamacare is such a mess before it starts, and now the fox is going to guard
the hen house.
Time to defund it. Take care of the 10% who don't have healthcare with a special
program and leave the other 90% to what they have. Then go to a fair or flat tax.

[buckman]

This scandal and these attacks on conservatives Is now about to head to other departments particularly the SEC.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The woman who is an absolute charge I believe her name is Sarah Ingram, has been promoted to be in charge of the Obamacare division of the IRS. While in charge of nonprofits at the IRS she received an average of $35,000 a year bonuses....bonuses that could only be approved by the Pres.
She will now be in charge of approving health care decisions.
Thank God none of this was politically motivated
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure that's true. My understanding is that the Whitehouse has little influence over the IRS for obvious reasons. Most government bonuses are automatic (rather than discretionary). There is a special award bonus program that the President does sign, but the recipients are nominated by their leadership up through the ranks...given her pay and the bonus numbers thrown out it doesn't sound like she was awarded a special bonus.

The formula here is becoming pretty clear. Assume the "scandal" then toss out bits of information accurate or not regardless of context to further the story.

That's not how you investigate, it's how you confuse.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure that's true. My understanding is that the Whitehouse has little influence over the IRS for obvious reasons. Most government bonuses are automatic (rather than discretionary). There is a special award bonus program that the President does sign, but the recipients are nominated by their leadership up through the ranks...given her pay and the bonus numbers thrown out it doesn't sound like she was awarded a special bonus.



-spence

What is the criteria for getting a taxpayer paid special awards bonus for your Govt. job?
Govt. workers are already paid for their work, get benefits, get retirement
after 25 years service and can't get fired except for wrong doing.

Pray tell, if as you say," the White House has little influence over the IRS", who does????

Simple questions that need simple answers.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure that's true. My understanding is that the Whitehouse has little influence over the IRS for obvious reasons. Most government bonuses are automatic (rather than discretionary). There is a special award bonus program that the President does sign, but the recipients are nominated by their leadership up through the ranks...given her pay and the bonus numbers thrown out it doesn't sound like she was awarded a special bonus.

The formula here is becoming pretty clear. Assume the "scandal" then toss out bits of information accurate or not regardless of context to further the story.

That's not how you investigate, it's how you confuse.

-spence

"My understanding is that the Whitehouse has little influence over the IRS "

At a minimum, the White House selects the Treasury Secretary who oversees the IRS. In this case, Obama selected a tax dodger, but we can save that for later...

"Most government bonuses are automatic "

That's a problem, then...

"The formula here is becoming pretty clear. Assume the "scandal" then toss out bits of information accurate or not regardless of context to further the story."

Of course, there are Obama-bashers who will exaggerate or fabricate. The flip side of that coin is you, who will go to any length to deny any criticism, valid or not, be directed at Obama. You have to admit, you're a heck of a cheerleader for the guy, Johnny Carson didn't have so loyal an ally in Ed McMahon. You're like Dwight Schrute to Michael Scott on 'The Office'.

Spence, Obama has a demonstrable history of being less than tolerant to those on my side (Republicans should sit in the back of the bus, we cling to guns and religion because we are bitter and racist, liberals should punish their enemies, Romney is suffering from 'Romnesia' - haw-haw!!). Can you deny that with a straight face? This IRS thing, while there is no direct evidence to Obama, is awfully consistent with the cutlure Obama has brought with his administration...it's an obvious, demonstrable culture of intolerance towards conservatives.

[justplugit]

As the onion peels.
Reported in the NY times --the White House Council knew about the
IRS targeting in April.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

As the onion peels.
Reported in the NY times --the White House Council knew about the
IRS targeting in April.

Correct.

And Obama told us he didn't know about this issue until he saw it on the news very recently.

So, (1) either the White House Counsel didn't think this was worth mentioning to his only client, or (2) Obama lied about when/how he found out about this.

[justplugit]

The quiet is deafening in here.

Either the fishing is good or the Lib defense has dried up. .

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The quiet is deafening in here.

Either the fishing is good or the Lib defense has dried up. .

Truths coming out. Couple more whistleblowers on Benghazi too.

I'm not an attorney, but I don't believe you can deny guilt and then plead the fifth. I would've kept her on stand, asked a million questions and made her plead the fifth to each and everyone of them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[mosholu]

As I understand it there is a difference between criminal trials and appearing before a legislative body. In a criminal trial you have the right not to testify against yourself and once you take the stand and testify you have to ask the questions asked of you and can not take the fifth. In a legislative appearance you must appear but at anytime you are allowed to take the fifth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

I think in this case, because she defended herself first as innocent in her opening statement and then pleaded the Fifth they will bring her back after the smaller fish are fried.

As these scandals go on, it's going to be interesting to see the Libs who
consider the Constitution as a living breathing document cling to
the Fifth Amendment.
Of course they will say that one is set in stone.

[justplugit]

Geez, where is the other 1/2, sequestered with Joe.
This is no fun.