07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 5455565758 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    Proof?
    Btw, that IRS manager was only over the Cincinnati office. It reached out farther than that.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    If 0% of conservative applications were denied, and 3 applications were denied, and all 3 of those were progressive or liberal organizations, then 100% of the denied applications were clearly not conservative; ergo there are applications that were audited that were not conservative.

    Also, as linked above, there are groups that were selected that were not involved in US politics at all. There are MORE conservative groups that were flagged than anything else, but that's not ALL. And the reason there were MORE, as we covered last year, was because of the giant increase in application volume, which of those that are showing obvious political affiliation, most are conservative.

    In 2006, 501(c)(4) organizations spent a total of about $1 million. In 2010, that was $92 million and in 2012 that was $256 million. There is an obvious cause for concern in a 25,000% increase in this type of activity.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    03-06-2014 09:43 AM
  2. pappy53's Avatar
    If 0% of conservative applications were denied, and 3 applications were denied, and all 3 of those were progressive or liberal organizations, then 100% of the denied applications were clearly not conservative; ergo there are applications that were audited that were not conservative.

    Also, as linked above, there are groups that were selected that were not involved in US politics at all. There are MORE conservative groups that were flagged than anything else, but that's not ALL. And the reason there were MORE, as we covered last year, was because of the giant increase in application volume, which of those that are showing obvious political affiliation, most are conservative.

    In 2006, 501(c)(4) organizations spent a total of about $1 million. In 2010, that was $92 million and in 2012 that was $256 million. There is an obvious cause for concern in a 25,000% increase in this type of activity.
    Denied doesn't mean they were audited.

    Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2014 09:52 AM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Ah, I see see the confusion. The O'Reilly interview comments were made about the "scandal" in 2010-2012 related to the application review process. That has all been established as nonsense. Dave Camp's comments are about audits that are still ongoing (no information has ever been released to back up his comments, and the full text of his remarks shows that he said the investigation is ongoing, and missing information, however he wasn't commenting about the "scandal" either, but rather speaking about blocking new rules introduced by the IRS and Treasury departments that wold reform how they handle these applications. The first story to attempt to link these two conversations, was reported on Feb 3rd by Fox News, and ironically was titled, "Not even a smidgen of corruption".

    One example on why Camp's data is needed, is because he doesn't indicate how many groups are being "audited", or what he means by audited, since he clearly indicates he considers reviewing their website or other publicly available information is an audit, rather than the deep sea dive into financial records that we normally think of when that word is used. Obviously the 83% represents 5 out of every 6 members of the population, if a small number were audited, then probability indicates it'd be likely to be among the 5/6. 5 out of 6 does fit pretty well with the ratio of applications that there were to begin with, so that number by itself is relatively meaningless. If a large population were audited and all fell within that definition, then that'd be more telling. There's a reason no one is reporting on this other than, "Camp said, ____" in his speech in February.
    03-06-2014 10:17 AM
  4. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Lol its a joke people.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Attached Thumbnails Should Obama be impeached?-1394168592511.jpg  
    03-06-2014 11:03 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's no secret the IRS just has a ton power, this one issue notwithstanding. I say just kick the whole organization out and be done with them once and for all. No more abuses on their part, and no more "charitable" groups trying to gain the system.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-07-2014 11:57 PM
  6. palandri's Avatar
    ...and lets not forget the NFL is a tax exempt organization: The Real Super Bowl Question: Should The NFL Be A Nonprofit? - Forbes
    03-08-2014 07:13 AM
  7. A895's Avatar
    ...and lets not forget the NFL is a tax exempt organization: The Real Super Bowl Question: Should The NFL Be A Nonprofit? - Forbes
    What's so interesting in that is that I don't know whether they should be taxed. They do charitable works, players do charitable works as well. I mean they could be taxed but then they might cut salaries or who knows what. As long as my Patriots ain't touched.

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    03-08-2014 07:24 AM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    What's so interesting in that is that I don't know whether they should be taxed. They do charitable works, players do charitable works as well. I mean they could be taxed but then they might cut salaries or who knows what. As long as my Patriots ain't touched.

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    The teams are taxed. it's the NFL central organization that isn't. Roger Goodell the NFL commissioner made $44.2M in 2012 from the tax exempt NFL. Something just isn't right about making 44.2 million from a tax exempt organization.
    03-08-2014 07:56 AM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    What's so interesting in that is that I don't know whether they should be taxed. They do charitable works, players do charitable works as well. I mean they could be taxed but then they might cut salaries or who knows what. As long as my Patriots ain't touched.

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    The way I understand it is that it's only the association that is tax exempt, while the teams do pay taxes. That also means it wouldn't impact any player or coach salaries, as those are handled by the team. Also, Forbes makes a good point that the taxes on less than $0 in profit are $0.
    03-08-2014 07:58 AM
  10. A895's Avatar
    The teams are taxed. it's the NFL central organization that isn't. Roger Goodell the NFL commissioner made $44.2M in 2012 from the tax exempt NFL. Something just isn't right about making 44.2 million from a tax exempt organization.
    I wouldn't go after the NFL so much seeing as there are other organizations that are tax exempt and should be looked into.

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    03-08-2014 08:05 AM
  11. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Aside from that though, I'm trying to fathom why anyone still cares about this, given that we've known it was nonsense since last Spring... and every fact that has come out since last Spring has only reinforced that position
    The only people that care are desperate conservatives, like Issa, hoping for a scandal. He calls hearing after hearing in an attempt to make himself relevant and hoping that something....anything...will stick. But he never looks into the real scandal.....the change in policy from EXCLUSIVELY social welfare (which is written as law) to "primarily". Additionally, why does Issa never call that conservative Republican to the witness stand that presided over all of this? Seems he only wants to go after people appointed by Obama rather then interviewing everyone. Hmmmmmmm...partisan witch hunt anyone? This is what people hate about Washington. Don't play games like this. Don't try to get to the bottom of your partisan "truth".....get to the truth period. Issa is one of the worst offenders.


    The real scandal:
    'Exclusively' vs. 'primarily': IRS law a 'disaster waiting to happen' | MSNBC
    03-11-2014 06:03 PM
  12. pappy53's Avatar
    The only people that care are desperate conservatives, like Issa, hoping for a scandal. He calls hearing after hearing in an attempt to make himself relevant and hoping that something....anything...will stick. But he never looks into the real scandal.....the change in policy from EXCLUSIVELY social welfare (which is written as law) to "primarily". Additionally, why does Issa never call that conservative Republican to the witness stand that presided over all of this? Seems he only wants to go after people appointed by Obama rather then interviewing everyone. Hmmmmmmm...partisan witch hunt anyone? This is what people hate about Washington. Don't play games like this. Don't try to get to the bottom of your partisan "truth".....get to the truth period. Issa is one of the worst offenders.


    The real scandal:
    'Exclusively' vs. 'primarily': IRS law a 'disaster waiting to happen' | MSNBC
    Then why do the IRS officials plead the 5th, instead of just telling the truth?
    03-11-2014 11:14 PM
  13. palandri's Avatar
    Then why do the IRS officials plead the 5th, instead of just telling the truth?
    Because that's what their attorney tells them to do. If you were brought before congress on potential wrong doing, even if you told your attorney that you did nothing wrong, he would still tell you to plead the 5th for fear that something you say may be construed as an illegal act. You are innocent until, "proven" guilty. The burden is not on you to prove your innocence.
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    03-12-2014 01:43 AM
  14. pappy53's Avatar
    Because that's what their attorney tells them to do. If you were brought before congress on potential wrong doing, even if you told your attorney that you did nothing wrong, he would still tell you to plead the 5th for fear that something you say may be construed as an illegal act. You are innocent until, "proven" guilty. The burden is not on you to prove your innocence.
    Wow, talk about putting a liberal spin on an answer! Lol.
    It's kinda hard to prove someone's guilt when they won't tell the truth, or even lie.
    03-12-2014 03:28 AM
  15. A895's Avatar
    Wow, talk about putting a liberal spin on an answer! Lol.
    It's kinda hard to prove someone's guilt when they won't tell the truth, or even lie.
    Thats the point. Palandri answer was more the fact than a liberal answer. I don`t know why you went there.
    03-12-2014 11:33 AM
  16. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Wow, talk about putting a liberal spin on an answer! Lol.
    It's kinda hard to prove someone's guilt when they won't tell the truth, or even lie.
    It more you put a conservative BS spin on it.

    Their attonty told them not to. Also you know as well as I do that the GOP does not give a hoot about the truth. They will take anything and try to make it a mountain. But oh the conservative trying the guilty until proven innocent.
    03-12-2014 11:43 AM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    Thats the point. Palandri answer was more the fact than a liberal answer. I don`t know why you went there.
    I'm not sure that utilizing your constitutional rights has a spin, but if it does... it's probably more conservative than liberal to fall back on your individual rights.
    03-12-2014 11:44 AM
  18. pappy53's Avatar
    Why can't she just tell the truth?
    03-12-2014 01:03 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What about the lady at the top (so many stories out that I don't remember which was her name) that professed her innocence before pleading the 5th? There was the claim that by doing so, she waived her 5th amendment rights and now shouldn't be able to say her peace without cross examination.
    03-12-2014 01:18 PM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    What about the lady at the top (so many stories out that I don't remember which was her name) that professed her innocence before pleading the 5th? There was the claim that by doing so, she waived her 5th amendment rights and now shouldn't be able to say her peace without cross examination.
    Only a defendant waives their right by beginning testimony. Witnesses can do so selectively, answering some questions and not others. That's why witnesses can be asked questions after having already invoked their 5th amendment right (otherwise, all questions after that point would be pointless and possibly illegal).
    03-12-2014 01:29 PM
  21. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Why can't she just tell the truth?
    Why can't Issa call in the Republican saying this wasn't a targeted effort at conservatives?
    03-12-2014 02:24 PM
  22. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Why can't she just tell the truth?
    this has been answered and addressed multiple times. You keep pushing the same well BS.

    By your argument you should always let cops do searches with out a warrent. Or always let the NSA wire tap you. You are doing nothing wrong so why bother trying to hide it.
    03-12-2014 03:04 PM
  23. pappy53's Avatar
    this has been answered and addressed multiple times. You keep pushing the same well BS.
    No, it has not been answered. What answer can justify someone refusing to tell the truth? BTW, what is "well" BS?
    By your argument you should always let cops do searches with out a warrent. Or always let the NSA wire tap you. You are doing nothing wrong so why bother trying to hide it.
    How did you deduce that from what I said? I think that you are just wanting to argue now, as you're not making any sense.
    03-12-2014 04:22 PM
  24. pappy53's Avatar
    this has been answered and addressed multiple times. You keep pushing the same well BS.
    No, it has not been answered. What answer can justify someone refusing to tell the truth? BTW, what is "well" BS?
    By your argument you should always let cops do searches with out a warrent. Or always let the NSA wire tap you. You are doing nothing wrong so why bother trying to hide it.
    How did you deduce that from what I said? I think that you are just wanting to argue now, as you're not making any sense.
    Why can't Issa call in the Republican saying this wasn't a targeted effort at conservatives?
    Didn't the IRS, and Obama apologize for the targeting of conservatives? Yes, they did, so how can it be said that it wasn't targeted?
    03-12-2014 04:25 PM
  25. Timelessblur's Avatar
    No, it has not been answered. What answer can justify someone refusing to tell the truth? BTW, what is "well" BS?


    How did you deduce that from what I said? I think that you are just wanting to argue now, as you're not making any sense.


    Didn't the IRS, and Obama apologize for the targeting of conservatives? Yes, they did, so how can it be said that it wasn't targeted?
    Your entire argument is her taking the 5th means she is guilty. Simple as that. It is anything but that. But you do not seem to understand that.
    A895 likes this.
    03-12-2014 04:39 PM
1,900 ... 5455565758 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD