Originally Posted by JDG 66

...'lots about missing e-mails; nothing about Progressive groups being disproportionately targeted - same old same old'....

zzzzzz.....

I've found C-Span to be invaluable in keeping-up on this;
Much more interesting than the 'regular stuff' on TV, IMO.


Prince

Originally Posted by JDG 66

[URL]
You can tell when PW knows he's losing an argument: He starts name-calling.

Of course, that's about half of his posts.

At least he doesn't write long, annoying posts in annoying red ink.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...f-evidence.php

Under federal law, a party has a duty to preserve data that may be relevant to any actual or likely lawsuit... The fundamental, shocking fact that is emphasized in True the Vote’s brief is this: at the time of Lois Lerner’s hard drive crash in June 2011, the IRS was already under a legal duty to take steps to ensure that information was not lost, and had been under such a duty for nearly a year, at a minimum...

True the Vote’s brief points out that the first lawsuit alleging discriminatory targeting of conservative groups was filed by a pro-Israel group called Z Street, Inc., on August 25, 2010. On that date, at the very latest, the IRS had a legal duty to take measures to ensure that no emails, correspondence, memoranda, notes, or other evidence of any sort that could be relevant to the case was lost or destroyed...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...mey-1404771635

Congressional investigators keep uncovering troubling facts in the IRS political targeting scandal, which makes us wonder: Where is that independent and intrepid G-Man James Comey ?

The FBI director told the HouseJudiciary Committee on June 11 that his agency's IRS investigation—ordered a year ago by Attorney General Eric Holder —is still "very active" and "something I get briefed on a regular basis." We'd like to know how he defines "regular" because two days later the IRS finally disclosed that it had "lost" emails sent by former IRS tax-exempt chief Lois Lerner and six other IRS employees. Mr. Comey failed to disclose this mysterious loss of evidence in his testimony...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...zzzzzz...

Ah! And even PW let this slip:

Originally Posted by playwrite

All you guys have is lost IRS e-mail...

.

...so PW seems to be whistling past the graveyard.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

At least he doesn't write long, annoying posts in annoying red ink...

.

1) The only reason you find my posts irritating is because they disturb your cognitive dissonance;

2) I don't write anything in red; red signifies quotes from the article. You really should pay attention.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...f-evidence.php

Under federal law, a party has a duty to preserve data that may be relevant to any actual or likely lawsuit... The fundamental, shocking fact that is emphasized in True the Vote’s brief is this: at the time of Lois Lerner’s hard drive crash in June 2011, the IRS was already under a legal duty to take steps to ensure that information was not lost, and had been under such a duty for nearly a year, at a minimum...

True the Vote’s brief points out that the first lawsuit alleging discriminatory targeting of conservative groups was filed by a pro-Israel group called Z Street, Inc., on August 25, 2010. On that date, at the very latest, the IRS had a legal duty to take measures to ensure that no emails, correspondence, memoranda, notes, or other evidence of any sort that could be relevant to the case was lost or destroyed...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...mey-1404771635

Congressional investigators keep uncovering troubling facts in the IRS political targeting scandal, which makes us wonder: Where is that independent and intrepid G-Man James Comey ?

The FBI director told the HouseJudiciary Committee on June 11 that his agency's IRS investigation—ordered a year ago by Attorney General Eric Holder —is still "very active" and "something I get briefed on a regular basis." We'd like to know how he defines "regular" because two days later the IRS finally disclosed that it had "lost" emails sent by former IRS tax-exempt chief Lois Lerner and six other IRS employees. Mr. Comey failed to disclose this mysterious loss of evidence in his testimony...




Ah! And even PW let this slip:

.

...so PW seems to be whistling past the graveyard.

.

1) The only reason you find my posts irritating is because they disturb your cognitive dissonance;

2) I don't write anything in red; red signifies quotes from the article. You really should pay attention.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Why are you wasting time on this? Haven't your heard that you guys are now getting off on scaring little kids on buses out in Murrieta?

Did you not get the memo?

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Haven't your heard that you guys are now getting off on scaring little kids on buses out in Murrieta?

-There are so many Obaamnation scandals, it's hard to keep track!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-There are so many Obaamnation scandals, it's hard to keep track!

Not to mention the burden of the real concern you have for the laws (abuse of 4019c) or people (the 4 lost Americans, the uninsured, children without parents)!

I'm sure you are just broken hearted.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Not to mention the burden of the real concern you have for the laws (abuse of 4019c) or people (the 4 lost Americans, the uninsured, children without parents...

1) There was no abuse of the law;

2) Uninsured does not equal death. If that were the issue, PW wouldn't push Obamacare, would he?

3) What children without parents? PW is losing it.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) There was no abuse of the law;

2) Uninsured does not equal death. If that were the issue, PW wouldn't push Obamacare, would he?

3) What children without parents? PW is losing it.

Uninformed as usual, but still thinking you know all the answers - pretty typical t-bagger behavior.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Uninformed as usual, but still thinking you know all the answers - pretty typical t-bagger behavior.

So...

1) PW cannot point to a single group which was harassed by the IRS which broke the law;

2) PW is ignorant of the people who lost the insurance or doctor they liked to Obamacare and are mighty unhappy about;

3) PW still has not explained who these "children without parents" are.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

So...

1) PW cannot point to a single group which was harassed by the IRS which broke the law;

2) PW is ignorant of the people who lost the insurance or doctor they liked to Obamacare and are mighty unhappy about;

3) PW still has not explained who these "children without parents" are.

zzzzzzzzzzz

The unbiased IRS:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/21...a-cheerleading

An IRS employee has been slapped with a 100-day suspension for exhorting taxpayers seeking assistance to vote for President Obama...

Why wasn't he fired?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-...n-lost-emails/

A federal judge is ordering the IRS to explain under oath how it lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure in the agency's tea party controversy...

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...ion_at_the_irs

...this week we gained new insights into Lerner’s thinking from one email that was recovered by investigators.

“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have several occasions where Congress has asked for emails... We need to be cautious about what we say in emails.”

That email was sent out 12 days after Lerner had received a draft report from the IRS inspector general which blew the whistle on the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

She suggested that top agency officials communicate among themselves via a sort of instant messaging system, which is not regularly archived and, therefore, wouldn’t likely be available to investigators. She even sought to verify that with a technology expert in the agency.

Of course, if you’re not doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to hide — right?


Channeling Playwrite: "Nothing to see here..."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/0...ng-irs-emails/

An Internal Revenue Service official told congressional investigators in an interview last week that — despite what agency leaders thought previously — some of the missing IRS emails might still exist on backup tapes.

Those tapes were thought to have been recycled several years ago, destroying the data...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...

Channeling Playwrite: "Nothing to see here..."

Why should I or any non- t-bagger get excited about missing e-mails when we got the BIG lie already staring everyone in the face???

Why did Grand Thief Auto Issa request that the IG only report on IRS targeting of conservative groups and not the larger number of targeted Progressive and other groups??? Why was the only groups denied exemptions only Progressive groups???

Without answering those questions, why should anyone, outside of hypocritical t-baggin liars and their moronic sheeple, pay any attention to this e-mail horseshit?

Shouldn't the biggest question of all be:

Why are we letting the IRS skate by with targeting anyone for retribution based on ideals of any flavor? I mean that seems like a very precarious cliff to let a group with enough power to have you imprisoned for "tax fraud" and be the same people who decide what tax fraud is being able to target anyone they feel like for whatever reason?

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Shouldn't the biggest question of all be:

Why are we letting the IRS skate by with targeting anyone for retribution based on ideals of any flavor? I mean that seems like a very precarious cliff to let a group with enough power to have you imprisoned for "tax fraud" and be the same people who decide what tax fraud is being able to target anyone they feel like for whatever reason?

You need to educate yourself more on the basic laws and regulations that the IRS was following.

There were 298 groups targeted for scrutiny (202 of them were NOT conservative groups). All of these groups were FORMALLY REQUESTING exemption from paying NORMAL taxes that political groups pay by claiming they were nonprofit organizations engage in "limited political campaign intervention," i.e. they were social nonprofit organizations and NOT political organization. Under the law, they can be exempt from paying taxes that political organizations pay but under the law that is TO BE DETERMINED BY THE IRS.

The IRS was doing its job. The issue was where they doing it in a biased manner against conservative groups. It's hard to make that case, when conservative groups made up less than half the groups targeted. Moreover, as a result of the Krotch Brothers, Karl Rove, DeMint et al, there was an order of magnitude more exemption requests from conservative groups than Progressive groups so on a proportional basis, there certainly was no bias against the baggers.

What is clearly biase was Grand Thief Auto Darrel Issa's request to the IRS IG to ONLY review and report on IRA targeting of conservative groups. Moronic sheeple like Glick are unable to grasp the hypocrisy.

But they were ALL targeted by the SAME people that make the laws. seems a slippery slope.

the IRS has entirely too much power regardless of who they are targeting.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

But they were ALL targeted by the SAME people that make the laws. seems a slippery slope.

the IRS has entirely too much power regardless of who they are targeting.

They were REQUESTING an exemption from taxes that EVERYONE ELSE is required to pay.

Do you want the IRS to grant them their exemption or do you want me to do it?
I'm okay with the latter but I want to be paid really big bucks for it.

If you just don't like paying taxes, well, join the club.

not about me, let's not backslide into incivility. you were doing so well and we were...gasp conversing like human beings.

everyone else doesn't pay taxes, some get earned income credit that actually gives them all they paid plus some returned. lots of corporations don't truly pay taxes either. people who work under the radar for cash rarely pay taxes. I highly doubt folks that hold a garage or estate sale pay taxes on it.

At this point give it to them, they were ballsy enough to ask, so few do. What difference would a few hundred more not paying taxes make? this country is so screwed now, a few hundred more isn't going to make that much of a difference. What's the worst that could happen the cops be forced to up their ticket writing quota for each month by a few more?

17 trillion in debt, I highly doubt 300 more not paying taxes is going to impact that 17 trillion in debt. At this point we are so deeply in hock we will never get out of it and it's only going to go up, so again where's the damage now letting a few more not pay taxes?

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Shouldn't the biggest question of all be:

Why are we letting the IRS skate by with targeting anyone for retribution based on ideals of any flavor? I mean that seems like a very precarious cliff to let a group with enough power to have you imprisoned for "tax fraud" and be the same people who decide what tax fraud is being able to target anyone they feel like for whatever reason?

The answer is simple: they want to pretend to be 501c4 charitable groups so they can hide their donor's names (priority #1) and give tax exemptions (a distant priority #2). They can do everything but those two by being 529 political groups. SCOTUS will even let then spend without end.

Hiding is the whole point. Shouldn't we know who's trying to pervert our political process, regarless of how?

Originally Posted by Danilynn

not about me, let's not backslide into incivility. you were doing so well and we were...gasp conversing like human beings.

everyone else doesn't pay taxes, some get earned income credit that actually gives them all they paid plus some returned. lots of corporations don't truly pay taxes either. people who work under the radar for cash rarely pay taxes. I highly doubt folks that hold a garage or estate sale pay taxes on it.

At this point give it to them, they were ballsy enough to ask, so few do. What difference would a few hundred more not paying taxes make? this country is so screwed now, a few hundred more isn't going to make that much of a difference. What's the worst that could happen the cops be forced to up their ticket writing quota for each month by a few more?

17 trillion in debt, I highly doubt 300 more not paying taxes is going to impact that 17 trillion in debt. At this point we are so deeply in hock we will never get out of it and it's only going to go up, so again where's the damage now letting a few more not pay taxes?

Incivility? That's being pretty sensitive, isn't it? Or does my pointing that out also not being civil?

Why do you see federal 'debt' as an issue? There's two ways to look at federal debt - either (1) it has never been paid off since the founding of the nation and it will never be paid off; or (2) it is completely paid off every 3-4 months by the entire $17T being rolled over from one set of bidders to another set of bidders (and for every successful bidder there are two to three that go home empty handed) - again it happens like clockwork every 3-4 months. What's the big deal?

The big deal is the interest paid on the debt - that is spending. It is spending that is added to all other federal govt spending which, in turn, adds to ALL other dollar spending, public/private, foreign/domestic, in the world. The only question is whether (a) that spending puts too much demand on the world economies to supply and we get too much upward pressure on prices, i.e. inflation or (b)is that total spending insufficient and we get downward pressure on prices, i.e. deflation?

There is not only some level of inflation that is acceptable, there is a level of inflation (the FED pegs it at 2%) that is NECESSARY for a healthy growing economy. Upward pressure on prices (i.e. inflation) is exactly what a smart businessman wants to see before investing in capital or hiring someone, i.e. growing the economy.

That's not true for deflation. Not real deflation at least. Yes, it is great that computer prices continue to drop but that is not the same thing as generalize deflation. Deflation is every economist's worse fear. One of the reasons you want some inflation (e.g. FED's 2%) is that it provides some assurance that there is not hidden deflation taking place that is going to jump out and take a bit out you, me and everyone else.

And do you think the world is moving to a point of scarcity of goods and services that would pose inflation? Or, do you see indications that there is too much supply potential with every country in the world vying to put their people to work producing as much stuff as possible? Yes, there are energy and commodity limitations, but look what is happening to the energy sector - the US now produces more than either Russia or Saudi Arabia - fricking Saudi Arabia!!! And we are now on track to actually out-exporting them!

Wages have been stagnant for nearly two decades. People are being forced out of labor participation. Recent law school graduates are accepting part-time internships without pay.

The robots (e.g., Google cars/trucks; Amazon drones) are coming to take your job. The jobs not taken by robots are going to be taken by other types of automation (e.g., AI software)

You're afraid of inflation????

Let's make a deal. Let's progressively cut federal taxes and raise federal spending - dollar for dollar resulting (oh, the horror!) in federal debt increasing $2 for every dollar in tax cut and spending increases. I'd start by cutting payroll taxes and spending to forgive student debt, but that's just me.

If we get sustained inflation above the FED's 2% target, we start progressively adding back the federal taxes and reducing the federal spending until the inflation abates. Let's turn this craziness over how much to tax and spend to the technocrats! (Now, where to cut and what to spend on will provide lots of opportunities to be, well, uncivil.)

Result -

If you want to reduce taxes - bingo, you're a winner!
If you want more govt spending - bingo, you're a winner!
If you're afraid of inflation - bingo, you're a winner!

The only people who lose are the people who are afraid of federal debt and deficits AND don't actually have a frickin clue why they're afraid - I'd call them mindless sheeple, but I'm trying to be civil.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The answer is simple: they want to pretend to be 501c4 charitable groups so they can hide their donor's names (priority #1) and give tax exemptions (a distant priority #2). They can do everything but those two by being 529 political groups. SCOTUS will even let then spend without end.

Hiding is the whole point. Shouldn't we know who's trying to pervert our political process, regarless of how?

Bingo!

And because "bingo!" doesn't have enough characters to allow a post, I will also add -

Very well said!

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Shouldn't the biggest question of all be:

Why are we letting the IRS skate by with targeting anyone for retribution based on ideals of any flavor? I mean that seems like a very precarious cliff to let a group with enough power to have you imprisoned for "tax fraud" and be the same people who decide what tax fraud is being able to target anyone they feel like for whatever reason?

Political activity has never been tax-exempt.

Political groups are obliged to pay sales/use tax on taxable purchases. They do not rightly get relief for property taxes.

Campaign contributions and personal costs of winning elections are not deductible expenditures. The contention that a political group deserves an exemption from taxes because it 'educates' people about the 'dangers' of high taxes or global warming while suggesting politicians for whom to vote is absurd. It is not for government to subsidize the activities that decide who the government is. This rightly excludes front groups for political parties.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The answer is simple: they want to pretend to be 501c4 charitable groups so they can hide their donor's names (priority #1) and give tax exemptions (a distant priority #2). They can do everything but those two by being 529 political groups. SCOTUS will even let then spend without end.

Hiding is the whole point. Shouldn't we know who's trying to pervert our political process, regarless of how?

Hey, M&L.

To minimize any possible misunderstandings, you may want to consider
using the term "tax-exempt non-profit" in place of "charitable group(s)" .

That said, I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

I take it that by "they", you're referring to the organizations
in question that were applying for recognition by the IRS?

So, what do you mean i/r/t your priority #2?
IOW, how would one of those organizations "give" tax exemptions?


Prince

PS: BTW, I believe you meant to say 527 groups, not 529?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, M&L.

To minimize any possible misunderstandings, you may want to consider
using the term "tax-exempt non-profit" in place of "charitable group(s)" .

That said, I don't quite understand what your saying here.

I take it that by "they", you're referring to the organizations
in question that were applying for recognition by the IRS?

So, what do you mean i/r/t your priority #2?
IOW, how would one of those organizations "give" tax exemptions?


Prince

PS: BTW, I believe you meant to say 527 groups, not 529?

From Wiki -

The origins of 501(c)(4) organizations date back to the Revenue Act of 1913, which created a new group of tax-exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare in a precursor to what is now Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4).[41]

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of "social welfare", such as civics and civics issues, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[42] An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.[37][43]

501(c)(4) organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program[44] and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[45] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities – generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election – is taxable.[46] An "action" organization generally qualifies as a 501(c)(4) organization.[47] An "action" organization is one whose activities substantially include, or are exclusively,[48] direct lobbying or grass roots lobbying related to advocacy for or against legislation or proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation that is related to its purpose.[49] A 501(c)(4) organization may directly or indirectly support or oppose a candidate for public office as long as such activities are not a substantial amount of its activities.[37][50]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[51] [b]Dues or contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations may be deductible as a business expense under IRC 162, although amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign, direct lobbying, grass roots lobbying, and contact with certain federal officials are not deductible.[52] If a 501(c)(4) engages in a substantial amount of these activities, then only the amount of dues or contributions that can be attributed to other activities may be deductible as a business expense.[53] The organization has to provide a notice to its members containing a reasonable estimate of the amount related to lobbying and political campaign expenditures, or else it is subject to a proxy tax on its lobbying and political campaign expenditures.[52] It must also state that contributions to the organization are not deductible as charitable contributions during fundraising.[52]

501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[54] The lack of disclosure has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[55][56] Criticized as "dark money", spending from these organizations on political TV ads has exceeded spending from Super PACs.[57][58] Spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors has increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million in the 2012 election.[59]

The use of 501(c)4's has been affected by the 2010 Citizens United decision, in which the Supreme Court struck the part of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited for-profit corporations, non-profit corporations, and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications. The Act defined an electioneering communication as a communication, that mentions a candidate's name sixty days before a primary or thirty days before a general election. Through 501(c)4 organizations electioneering communications can since be aired at any time.

- in short, a lot of room for subterfuge by huge anonymous donors - also known as Koch brothers, Karl Rove, and Jim DeMint.

And exactly who should be making the determination that the Koch brothers should get huge tax avoidance because they are trying to
'educate' voters rather than buy a candidate and an election?