IRS: We Targeted Conservative, Tea Party Groups With Extra Scrutiny — 'Mistakes Were Made'

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



the president is the head of the Treasury Department in terms of accountability.


Oh so, so wrong.

CONGRESS is in charge of the treasury department. The president only picks the secretary of the treasury, but congress is the one the treasury answers to according to article I section 8 of the United States Constitution.

This is why congress holds hearings and brings in the fed chair and the treasury secretary from time to time.

Just because he picks the secretary, means he's in charge of them about as much as when he picks a supreme court justice. (read: not at all)

It's congress who holds the purse strings.

They are the ones who have the power to lay and collect taxes (according to the Constitution) they are the ones that write the tax code (Not Obama) they are the ones that are really in charge of the treasury.

Hit your thumb with a hammer? Must be Obama's fault huh?




posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Are you a talking parrot, sitting on the shoulder of the Tyrant 0bama? Or Carney maybe???

Please, go back to civics class.

Nixon was in fact impeached, article 1, on misuse of the IRS.

The IRS is under the direction of the Executive branch. The director is put in place by the President.

The 0bama butt kissing is truly getting silly at this point.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
actually, I want more pressure coming down on these groups from the IRS...they were formed for the obvious, direct, attacks against the president, completely illegal for tax exempt status.....to hell with the supposed outrage....to receive this tax exempt status you need to be politically neutral, the tea party and other "patriot' groups are so right wing that they should be scrutinized even more closely....they are in direct violation of law THAT WAS INSTITUTED AND PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED IN TO LAW BY BUSH IN 2004!!!!!!!!


SO you support Tyranny, as long as it is directed at the people/persons you deem.

Yeah, no bias there. Only the expected sucking up to the Tyrant 0bama Admin.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Oh so, so wrong.

CONGRESS is in charge of the treasury department. The president only picks the secretary of the treasury, but congress is the one the treasury answers to according to article I section 8 of the United States Constitution.


I suggest you take the advice of the other poster and brush up on your civics. The Treasuary Department was created via an act of Congress in 1789. That act is coded as following:

§301. Department of the Treasury

(a) The Department of the Treasury is an executive department of the United States Government at the seat of the Government.

(b) The head of the Department is the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.


What you are confusing is how the basics of separation of powers doctrine. Article I, Section 8 delegates the power to spend the Peoples' money to Congress. In turn, through legislation, Congress authorizes the Department of the Treasury to allow the release of public money for purposes described in said legislation.

The Department of the Treasury is also the vessel in which the Federal Government intakes revenue -- notably, the Internal Revenue Service.


This is why congress holds hearings and brings in the fed chair and the treasury secretary from time to time.


What? That is the inferred subpoena power of Congress and has nothing to do with what branch of government a person is in. Think of it in line with Executive Orders (inferred Executive power) and Judicial Review (inferred Judicial power). A symmetry of power between the three branches.

Example: Legislature wants to see records and subpoenas the Department of Justice for records. The Executive claims executive privilege on the what ever grounds. The Judicial provides review of it all and helps move the process along.


Just because he picks the secretary, means he's in charge of them about as much as when he picks a supreme court justice. (read: not at all)


Except in the case of the Treasury Department, he is picking someone for the Cabinet (read: Executive Branch)
Further thoughts on this:
In the case of a Supreme Court Justice, that is done so via the powers delegated to the Executive in Article II, Section 2 and is the responsibility of the President and the Senate is directed to advise and consent to the pick; may it be a department head (typically cabinet member) an ambassador or a judge.


It's congress who holds the purse strings.

No one is arguing that.


They are the ones who have the power to lay and collect taxes (according to the Constitution) they are the ones that write the tax code (Not Obama) they are the ones that are really in charge of the treasury.

Congress surly does and you are correct. They authorize the Executive branch's departments, in this case, the Department of Treasury, to enforce that legislation.

However, that doesn't mean that Congress is in control of the department. They do have plenary power to dissolve the department if they so see fit, but they authorize the department to be ran by the Executive branch; which leads us full circle: who is the head of that branch?


Hit your thumb with a hammer? Must be Obama's fault huh?

Stop being silly.
edit on 14-5-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Danbones
ummm...Beez
there's your trouble:
you spelt "high" level" wrong
edit on 10-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Nononononono!

Didn't you know that "low-level" IRS folks can determine who to investigate on a national level!
But Beezer, think of this: If there are 17 new taxes in store for all of us with the Obozocare, what does that mean for our health and well being! Imagine if they decide to target, lets say cancer patients or diabetics??? We should be very concerned about this and make it a number one priority that this CANNOT happen!

Pax



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by CB328
Republicans say we need racial profiling to catch terrorists, so why can't we have anti-tax profiling to catch tax cheats??


And Democrats say we need to look out for crazy white males who believe in homeschooling children and being responsible.

Cute...any more red-herrings for us to chase down?

What a partisan hack you are CB


Are you suggesting that the American government is saying only 'crazy white males' homeschool their children? I would agree too many people may think home schooling is easy and something that without the qualifications or skills themselves they are up to the job, but someone has said it's only crazy white males? If they are crazy (your word) and keeping their children out of their local community then that sounds like something that you would think would be worthy of at least being concerned about?

This wasn't an ironic post, just interested in where that came from and why you think it is applicable as on so many of these threads non sequiturs are often thrown in as though they prove the point whereas in fact they do nothing of the sort.
edit on 14-5-2013 by something wicked because: edited as I caught a typo (I wasn't home schooled)




posted on May, 14 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


It was a facetious response to a ridiculous post. CB's logic was spectacular. A wants Y, so B should get Z. The call for profiling doesn't equate logically to the call for the IRS to target groups based on the ebb and flow of partisanship of the Executive of the time.

As for what I used; it was randomly selected from what I have seen in the past day or so and from the past and was never intended (I thought that was pretty clear at how flippant the response was that I gave) to be of any serious notion or discussion.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Why do you think it's silly, there's a base group of about 8 or 9 people here on ATS who's sole purpose seems to be to take absolutely anything that ever happens and spin it so that this president looks bad.

High unemployment: Obama's fault, (not that companies are refusing to hire people, it's all just Obama)

Bad economy: Obama's fault, (not that companies like AIG, goldman sachs, among others used mortgage backed securities that were sure to fail and tanked the economy, it's all just Obama)

Unrest in the Middle East: Obama's fault, (Not that living in a desert sucks, and living under a oppressive religious theocracy is insane, it's all just Obama)

Mexican Drug Cartels: Obama's fault (Not that many Americans are hopelessly addicted to illegal narcotics, funding the drug cartels, It's all Obama's fault)

Male pattern baldness: Obama's fault

Stubbed toes: Obama's fault

If you only had ATS as the only source of information on this administration, you would come away thinking that this president sits in a hollowed out volcano lair, petting a white cat, while continuously plotting the destruction of the world and laughing maniacally.

And NOW, here, we have people in the IRS who did something shady, profiling conservative groups unfairly, it MUST be Obama's fault. (Not that they worked independently of their own policies most likely without upper management's knowledge or direction, It's all Obama's fault)

It's just a matter of time before y'all start blaming Obama for your constipation.

And I'm being silly.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


With all the great minds on this site, I find it interesting that, if Obama was so good and honest and kind and wonderful, it would have been decided years ago. Those of us who are "fringe" and "whacko" would have been laughed off this site a long time ago.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

And right now, there is sooooooo much smoke in DC, it looks like Washington is electing a fracking pope!



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
You know what would be awesome? If this actually led to an audit of the IRS, which it should.

...But it wont.

this admin is cementing its place as one of the worst ever...
edit on 14-5-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Carney: W.H. 'People Were Aware' of IRS Targeting Conservatives, But Didn't Do Anything About It

www.weeklystandard.com...

Why would they it was 'election time',.

The kicker!!!!!

University to Bestow ‘Face of IRS Scandal’ with Honorary Tribute


The woman in charge of the IRS division responsible for reviewing tax-exempt status applications and who is at the heart of an ongoing scandal over revelations the agency targeted conservative groups is set to receive an honorary tribute from Western New England University School of Law on Saturday.


www.thecollegefix.com...


O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to decieve.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GenerationGap
 



Originally posted by GenerationGap
Yep, same old stuff the IRS did under Bush, except under him the IRS targeted Ron Paul groups. When it was happening under Bush the lefties were all up in arms about it.


Why would the left complain about Ron Paul being targeted?

Actually, during the Bush Years, the IRS targeted Liberal Churches, the NAACP and other left-leaning groups.

I know people HATE it when Bush is brought up at times like these, and I'm not saying it's right OR wrong for the IRS to target certain groups, but I think it's a bit hypocritical for people to go after one president for doing it and not another.
edit on 5/14/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


On page one, I did ask. . .


Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Logarock
 


In all fairness, I wonder if socialist or communist leaning groups have had heavier scrutiny during republican administrations?



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


And I did answer.
It seems that at least during the Bush years, the answer is yes. What's your take, beez? Doesn't it kind of make sense for the IRS to more closely scrutinize organizations that may take advantage of a tax-exempt status for their own gain?

I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I can see why they would.

I do wish they'd scrutinize the wealthy and their tax shelters a little more carefully.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This is disgusting, it would bring a government down if it happened here. I suspect it would have brought down the government over there 30 years ago too, but not now.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer
 


And I did answer.
It seems that at least during the Bush years, the answer is yes. What's your take, beez? Doesn't it kind of make sense for the IRS to more closely scrutinize organizations that may take advantage of a tax-exempt status for their own gain?

I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I can see why they would.

I do wish they'd scrutinize the wealthy and their tax shelters a little more carefully.


I think that whatever ruling party is abusing the system by targeting the opposition.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know people HATE it when Bush is brought up at times like these, and I'm not saying it's right OR wrong for the IRS to target certain groups, but I think it's a bit hypocritical for people to go after one president for doing it and not another.


Exactly.

But the Progs, and Libs out there had NO problem going after Bush for his problems.

Facts you cant deny.

Why not now? Why make it a partisan thing?

Wrong is Wrong. Period.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Is there corruption in DC? Of course there is. Has Obama done some stupid things? Yes he has. Has Obama broken some campaign promises? Yes he has.

Here's all the campaign promises that Obama has outright broken...

22% of his campaign promises broken.

I'm not counting compromises in this, and I won't. Bi-partisanship, requires compromise (it's a four letter word to conservatives)

As far as you all being laughed off this site, that's not the goal of ATS. ATS encourages people to explore the fringe. However, with that ability to express your 1st Amendment right to free speech of unpopular opinion, is the obligation to deal with detractors of that opinion.

And here's where you fail.

When you call Obama a socialist, a communist, a fascist, an illegal alien born in Kenya, a secret Muslim etc. That's when you fail.

Do you know why?

Because Obama isn't any of those things. Obama is a corporatist. Obama is in the pockets of big business. This is why food stamps and other government welfare monies are handled through JP Morgan Chase bank. In fact, every person with a food stamp card is carrying around a master card attached to a checking account with JP Morgan Chase. (all master cards start with the number 5) How much money do you think JP Morgan Chase is making off of that deal?

Obama isn't anti business, as you all have claimed, he is pro big business.

Now, this "conspiracy" which you all desperately are trying to pin on the president like it was his own personal decision. Like you do with absolutely every single other thing that is wrong in this country or around the world. Is just masterbation.

Again, if someone's only source of information about this administration was ATS, one would think that Obama sits in a hollowed out volcano petting a white cat maniacally plotting the destruction of the world.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by something wicked
 


It was a facetious response to a ridiculous post. CB's logic was spectacular. A wants Y, so B should get Z. The call for profiling doesn't equate logically to the call for the IRS to target groups based on the ebb and flow of partisanship of the Executive of the time.

As for what I used; it was randomly selected from what I have seen in the past day or so and from the past and was never intended (I thought that was pretty clear at how flippant the response was that I gave) to be of any serious notion or discussion.


Hmmm, so, it was a non sequitur then.

If a party or self appointed group judged as being on the fringe that may or may not be a legitimate political party - of any leaning - and thus any payments made to it are exempt from paying taxes from any donations made, you would be happy with that and consider it not worthy of further investigation to find out if such claims are legitimate?
edit on 14-5-2013 by something wicked because: added two words



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok


And here's where you fail.

When you call Obama a socialist, a communist, a fascist, an illegal alien born in Kenya, a secret Muslim etc. That's when you fail.

Do you know why?



Obama is a community organizer with no experience, a divider who polarizes, a power-hungry politician who's casual disregard for the laws and Constitution are writ large.

99% of politicians are the same.

The issue arises in the dichotomy that is prevalent in the MSM and everywhere else.

It's okay to blame Bush, but we can't blame Obama because he's just a victim.
It's okay to blame Congress, but we can't blame Obama because he's just a victim.

The buck stops with leadership. Way back in O-school, we were taught that our people got the fame, we got the blame.

Obama is a piss-poor leader. He has no moral compass. His goal is to better himself at the sacrifice of all others. His casual disregard to toss any and everyone under the bus to keep himself clean is apparent to anyone that can see.





top topics
 
36
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join