IRS 'targeted' groups with 'Occupy' and 'Progressive' in names

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

IRS 'targeted' groups with 'Occupy' and 'Progressive' in names


www.da ilykos.com

The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency said Monday.
An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides ‘‘tea party,’’ lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘'Progressive’’ and ‘‘Occupy.’’ The document said an investigation into why specific terms were included was still underway.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
after the out rage of the IRS tax tea party targeting i thought i would update the situation.
as it turns out after the investigation was concluded (not a good idea to jump to conclusions) that there "targeting" was EVERY GROUP WITH a name that sounded like it had a connection to politics or electioneering.

it would look to me like Occupy was "targeted" in the exact same manner as tea party groups because THAT IS THE LAW and not because of some perceived grudge.

EQUAL targeting is not actually tageting, it is equally looking to see if left and right were using the charity exemption to spend money on elections,
something that is ILLEGAL and something that MUST be investigated upon application for tax exempt status.

so do the tea party folk want to see the IRS staff fired now that they know the "left" was treated in the exact same manner?

will the people attacking me personally for trying to explain the situation now have sympathy for the left?

or will they claim that Occupy should be targeted?

it looks like some people who only looked at the problem from a political angle missed the law enforcement angle.

spending charity money on your political friends is a crime, and it the job of the IRS to ensure any group (Occupy included) is actually a charity and not a walfare group for political parties.

if you realise that EVERY charity that applies for tax exempt status SHOULD be investigated,
then you realise the tea party wasnt unfairly treated,

can we now get to the crux of the issue instead of trying to blame left or right.

using tax free money for politics is wrong, and trying to hide the illegal activity with claims of "targeting" only allows cover for illegal uses of the exemption.

www.da ilykos.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Ive been waiting for this since the tea party revelation.

The thing is, this stuff isnt just about one group. It is ANY group that dares think outside of the 2 party system. That doesnt support the status quo.

I hope, soon, that people in these groups realize this, and start working together, instead of letting themselves be divided and conquered.

ETA: I wont hold my breath, though. Too many people have sold their soul to partisan politics.
edit on 24-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
And I am still wating for the answer of how a 'group' of people 'jobless' which means they have no income. living in tents get targeted.

Oh just because the Daily kos says so.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
And I am still wating for the answer of how a 'group' of people 'jobless' which means they have no income. living in tents get targeted.

Oh just because the Daily kos says so.
Then you dont understand taxes....not having a job does not mean you cannot be tagged for not paying taxes on other incomes.

I understand that this gets in the way of partisan bickering, but come on now....



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Uh yeah I do have to have a job to pay taxes, and that was the entire deal

about Occupy yes?



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Uh yeah I do have to have a job to pay taxes, and that was the entire deal

about Occupy yes?

No, you dont. ANY INCOME over specified amounts can be taxed. There is no 'employment' requirement.

There are a lot of gamblers, beneficiaries and artists that wish what you say was true. But its not.
edit on 24-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-6-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
And I am still wating for the answer of how a 'group' of people 'jobless' which means they have no income. living in tents get targeted.

Oh just because the Daily kos says so.


let me explain it is simple language, so you can understand.

there is no left right issue with "targeting" as claimed,
there were lists of groups that required closer inspection because their application name had political sounding names.
this was not supposed to happen, this is "targeting"
BUT
it was not AGAINST one group as claimed on ATS and other media that the tea party was singled out for closer inspection,
it was actually targeting ANY group that applied for tax exempt status WEATHER LEFT OR RIGHT.

so keep the name calling to yourself,
it has nothing to do with "personal income" it has to do with the subverting of charity for politics.

Occupy went through the EXACT SAME THING as did other groups.

simple enough for ya?

xploder



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Uh yeah I do have to have a job to pay taxes, and that was the entire deal

about Occupy yes?



do you give money to charities?
do you expect them to use the money in the manner they claim?
would you be pissed off to know that your charity was used for someone elses gain?
do you care that your charity could be used as "wealfare" for rich politicans?

or are you blind to what happens after you donate?

xploder



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The source article may have been trying to protect the IRS and by extension the administration from accusations of partisan targeting. But it just points out that the IRS has become a weapon of the establishment, to be used against the masses, regardless of political affiliation, who seek to stop the endless cycle of corruption and greed that is running a muck in our Govt.

Unfortunately this thread is just going to degenerate into a left versus right mud slinging contest.
edit on 24-6-2013 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





do you give money to charities?


Everyone does it's called the US government. via forced taxation.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by watchitburn
 


you make some very good points,
i have decided to "forgive the right"

Unfortunately this thread is just going to degenerate into a left versus right mud slinging contest.


i will avoid any one trying to derail this thread with partisan arguments,
or off topic one liners


your right, any group who looks to break the hold of the two party system is attacked

xploder



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   
What gets me is that organization that goes for the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status can still use up to 40% of donations for political campaigns which is supposed to be illegal. To me this is straight hypocracy in the language. If you are tax exempt then you shouldn't be able to use any funds towards political means but fenced off to these social issues only.

501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations.

That is where my issue lies.

Also, the silence from the liberal filers and the outrage from the conservative filers says a lot.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I'd like to hear from these groups. I'd like to hear, in their own words, the same stories of scrutiny. The same intrusive questions.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Questions about “the content of their prayers“ Queries about the books they were reading Requests for the name of teenage interns Demands for lists of members and donors Lists of names of books they were reading Questions about “activation with the news media” (whatever that is)


Source

I wanna hear their 'stories' too.
edit on 24-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I'd like to hear from these groups. I'd like to hear, in their own words, the same stories of scrutiny. The same intrusive questions.


no outrage?
what makes you think that the exact same treatment was not equally shared around?

xploder



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

I wouldn't have said this in years past, but it's awfully hard to trust this administration.

what makes you think that the exact same treatment was not equally shared around?
Two things, one, that the agency under attack comes up weeks later with the statement "We did it to the other side, too." It's not unheard of for a department (say, State) to issue lies to protect themselves.

Two, the DailyKos is not an organ likely to investigate deeply into claims by the Obama administration.

Proof? No, but I think serious suspicion is reasonable.



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by XPLodER
 

I wouldn't have said this in years past, but it's awfully hard to trust this administration.


i understand that



Two things, one, that the agency under attack comes up weeks later with the statement "We did it to the other side, too." It's not unheard of for a department (say, State) to issue lies to protect themselves.


i am in NZ on the other side of the earth, our government does this too, its called doubling down



Two, the DailyKos is not an organ likely to investigate deeply into claims by the Obama administration.


second source,

The words “occupy,” “progressive,” and “Israel” appeared on a “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) list used by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, according to media reports.


www.rawstory.com...

still a lefty web sight but im sure main stream will hve this story soon enough



Proof? No, but I think serious suspicion is reasonable.



as it turns out the same treatment was dished out to both sides,
why are we mad at each other?

why do we allow charity (tax exempt) funds to be used for rich politicians instead of helping the people?

xploder



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I for one don't like to see the govt. targeting anyone for their politics, right, left or bat**** crazy!!

Either we all enjoy liberty to express ourselves; or none of us do. It's not a partisan issue; it's called freedom of speech.

The cops at 'Occupy' had other ideas though....didn't they?
edit on 24-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Don't you think it is a little ironic that none of these progressive or occupy groups have come forward and claimed unfair targeting? Me I would personally like to see a copy of the questions posed to these groups.

Were they any thing like (what do you pray about)?

I seriously doubt this article. I think they are just trying to make this scandal a none issue.

Further more they targeted any group with words like freedom, constitution, and the tea party in their names. I don't know where you get your ideology but in the dictionary those words are not political.

If you look up on Wikipedia you will find that the gentleman who started the tea party asked both dems and repubs to join. Also the tea party is for smaller government , better over site and constitutional values. The left is the ones that make it political. Remember they're the ones that want to shred the constitution!





new topics
top topics
 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join