It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So why is the IRs 'aplogizing' if it did nothing wrong eh?

Oh because they were doing something wrong, please feel free to continue to defend a corrupt government organization tho...



And why is the President outraged? Apparently he's more outraged or just as outraged as anyone else. Seems odd that the White House is so "outraged" when it's all a tempest in a teacup according to XPLodER and other pundits like him...


Yes! So outraged in fact that he let a guy resign from a job two weeks early than he had planned on with full pension.




posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Why is Obama outraged?

It's like being stuck in the elevator and someone passes gas point to someone else when in fact the smeller is the fellar.

Fake outrage by misdirection.
edit on 20-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



The OP is doing the job the MSM has failed to do.

Is subverting charities for politics acceptable? How are charities being subverted, and if a message coincides then it isn't. Catholic charities provide soup and prayers. Baptist charities provide the same. Tea Party organisations may just be preaching a different message.

Self-reliance, freedom from government subservience being just a couple messages that are being provided.


please
you are not trying to equate religion and politics are you?
charitable religious tax exemption is predicated on "non political" actions.

ie
you cant be an exempt charity and feed only democrats.

these laws are in place to stop the subversion of charity for political purposes.

something that the tea party groups were investigated for,
same goes for OWS

hope that helps

xploder



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by _Del_
 


Why is Obama outraged?

It's like being stuck in the elevator and someone passes gas point to someone else when in fact the smeller is the fellar.

Fake outrage by misdirection.
edit on 20-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



I'd agree with you, but I could do with out an audit...



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by XPLodER
 


No, it doesn't really help. What are you arguing here? Who are you debating? Obama, your President, has said....HIMSELF....this is misconduct. He's used the word inexcusable and he's personally called for investigation. Not just ONCE.


BECAUSE of the fact that a group was singled out,
NOT because they were incorrectly investigated,
there is a MAJOR difference under law.


You would seem to be debating the President's own words, admissions and meanings. The only thing I'm finding surprising with Obama is that he figured he could heave-ho the IRS head under the bus and not have it come BACK on him as a sign of poor leadership for it having happened in the first place.


i disagree with the president in that ANY and ALL groups applying for tax exempt status should be investigated,
if they have a political opinion and are trying to elect candidates, either left right or center.
i disagree that tea party groups should be handled with kid gloves, in the same way i disagree with any left leaning groups getting "special" attention.


However, every point you're debating isn't a point I've made. It's a point those being accused, in the oddest twist of this story, have already stipulated to and in as many words. :shk:


i am free to join this debate and point out relevant facts,
its complicated but every group that wants tax exempt stutus should be put under a microscope,
else why isnt the repulican party simply a tax free "charity"

xploder



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

You're free to join the debate and I'm free to exit out of the sideline chat, as well. We really are debating two distinctly different but peripherally related things. When this comes to hearings and perhaps criminal charges in lower ranks of the IRS (at least), it won't be about legitimate charity status claimed by shady re-election groups, as that isn't what all the fuss is about in world wide press at the moment. (amazing how many countries find this interesting as news headlines to local 'international' sections, too).

The fuss is about political targeting for politics sake in selection and execution of audits along with specifics of the application process.

I'll hang out for another thread on the other topic...as it would be interesting to debate as well. Oh the little things I saw and picked up around Occupy, for example. lol.... Not quite the thread tho, for me anyway.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So you're saying OWS got the same treatment as the Tea Party.

Okay.

And that makes it okay, to target, to profile organisations based on their ideologies?

You're okay with this? Really?

Look, I fought some of the messages that OWS was trying to portray, but I never wanted them silenced and even fought for their rights to freely assemble!

You seem to be taking sides as to whom gets to enjoy freedoms and who doesn't.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


So the TPM was targeted for the politics, and audited, wonder if they were targeted, and denied their constitutional rights to their second amendment by the BATFE.

IF one government agency is targeting I wonder how many others.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Neo, I think we're seeing such a cascade of scandals because people are realizing that it just isn't one thing or two.

I could imagine TPM's getting isolated for permits, but at this time it'd be mere speculation.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96
 


Neo, I think we're seeing such a cascade of scandals because people are realizing that it just isn't one thing or two.

I could imagine TPM's getting isolated for permits, but at this time it'd be mere speculation.


Same here, and yes it is speculation, but never thought a government agency (IRS) would target anyone because of their politics.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So you're saying OWS got the same treatment as the Tea Party.

Okay.


and its justified by the simple fact that political groups should not be tax exempt,
they were investigated to ENSURE that the status would be granted to "social works for the benefit of the community"


And that makes it okay, to target, to profile organisations based on their ideologies?


not ideology, that makes it unacceptable


You're okay with this? Really?

no im not, i dont like the idea one group was singled out for "extra scrutiny"
i think ALL applicants should be investigated with the same vigour as OWS was.
NOT just because of their name, that WAS wrong


Look, I fought some of the messages that OWS was trying to portray, but I never wanted them silenced and even fought for their rights to freely assemble!


i too told people that the tea party has the RIGHT to feely assemble, and even told groups it would be wrong to turn up and confront them.


You seem to be taking sides as to whom gets to enjoy freedoms and who doesn't.


why are political parties banned from tax exempt status?
because they can subvert money from the public good for personal use in electing ones "friends"

i am trying to walk a fine line between what the law says and what is acceptable behaviour of a governmental org.
AND trying to show "the intent" of the laws as they are written.

i am not taking sides, just trying to point out that if charity can be subverted for politics,
every individual loses.

it becomes the group with the deepest pockets wins, not democracy.

xploder



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 
What part of "The Buck Stops Here" do folks not understand? If this were GWB nobody would be defending him here. Everyone would be like "He's the Potus and ultimately the responsibility lies at his feet".



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So explain to me how someone who doesn't have a job or any money and living out of a tent(OWS) would get 'targeted' by the IRS.
edit on 20-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

why are political parties banned from tax exempt status?
because they can subvert money from the public good for personal use in electing ones "friends"



Let us remember that tax exemt status granted means absolutely nothing.

 


Proof positve, Organizing for Aciton case in point. Tax exempt 501c Obama's
and Michelle own personal agenda carried out to a T. How in the world did they
get this exempt status?

You can bet they will never be investigated by the IRS, that is for sure.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


So explain to me how someone who doesn't have a job or any money and living out of a tent(OWS) would get 'targeted' by the IRS.
edit on 20-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


OWS "applied" for tax exempt status as a charitable organisation,
being stated as "non political" was not enough "proof" that the money would be used for the stated purpose of public good or social welfare. an investigation was launched by the IRS upon application to "ensure" the money was actually going to "where" it stated it would go.

it was considered "par for the course" when applying for this type of tax status,
questions included who when where and how would be involved and also minutes of meetings and subjects discussed at these meetings.

it was almost identical to the investigations the tea party was subjected to.

you see to set up a charitable tax exempt fund you must be able to show your we not just a political party trying to hide behind a name ie OWS.

i see no problem with them being very very careful with the OWS application as at the time many people did not agree with there core message. any tax exemption would be scrutinized by people at odds with their message,
and could bring "disrepute" to the irs.

its completely normal for this process to screen out "political" charities

xploder



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Ok the IRS does not have the right to single any political group out

Period.

They don't have the right to define 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate'.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Just to provide an example of the difference two opposite political tax exempt groups are treated by the IRS.

From 2011 and reported by the NY POST


President Obama's half-brother runs an off-the-books American charity that claims to support poor Kenyans -- but it lies about its federal status and no one knows how it spends its money. The foundation claims to be a tax-exempt, federally recognized nonprofit. It is not.

Nor are there any filings of its expenditures, which the IRS requires of larger charities.

Alton Ray Baysden, a former State Department employee at whose Virginia home the charity was founded in 2008, admitted the organization has not even applied for tax-exempt status.


Then magically IRS official Lerner speedily approved exemption for Obama brother’s ‘charity’


Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.


Now I suppose someone here is going to tell me the president had nothing to do with that either?



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


True they don't,,,The Chicago Gangsta,,,

edit on 20-5-2013 by guohua because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by neo96
 
What part of "The Buck Stops Here" do folks not understand? If this were GWB nobody would be defending him here. Everyone would be like "He's the Potus and ultimately the responsibility lies at his feet".


Star for the Truth!!!
But this POTUS has told his Followers,,,

And they believe him!!



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96
 


Neo, I think we're seeing such a cascade of scandals because people are realizing that it just isn't one thing or two.

I could imagine TPM's getting isolated for permits, but at this time it'd be mere speculation.


Same here, and yes it is speculation, but never thought a government agency (IRS) would target anyone because of their politics.



My friend don't forget Obamas own words!!!!! Something like Don't listen to anti-government type talk,,, or don't fear your government or something to that effect,,, OR Else!!!



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join