|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Jul 31, 2013 21:53:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 1, 2013 11:02:17 GMT
What part of "groups that are attempting to affect the votes of the American People" should all be considered PAC's and treated under the tax and election laws as PAC's do "conservatives" fail to understand?
We also know that 2/3rds of those groups filing for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status that were subjected to additional IRS scrutiny were NOT conservative groups. They included groups that advocated for reform in our marijuana laws, government health care, and gun control that are typically "liberal" organizations. They are also subjected to the additional scrutiny of the IRS and justifiably so. Any group with a "political" motive should be a registered PAC as opposed to a 501(c)(4) tax exempt entity.
Today's tax codes allow some "political activity" by 501(c)(4) tax exempt groups and I say we should have a "zero tolerance" policy where any political activity by an organization would require it to register as a PAC and exclude it from being a 501(c)(4) tax exempt entity. As a voter I want to know who's funding political activities and the 501(c)(4) tax exempt status allows individual to contribute massive amounts of money anonymously to affect the vote and that is objectionable to me. I have a Right to Know who's funding political activities regardless of their political motivation or position.
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Aug 2, 2013 15:12:41 GMT
Good argument, but it has nothing to do with the OP.
How about the IRS delaying approval for an organizations 501c4 long enough so they can be either (1) let the election pass by without getting involved or (2) be charged with a crime for going ahead wo the proper IRS rulings?
Both choices stink... if it was a libertarian organization, im sure you'd agree.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 2, 2013 19:13:07 GMT
Good argument, but it has nothing to do with the OP. How about the IRS delaying approval for an organizations 501c4 long enough so they can be either (1) let the election pass by without getting involved or (2) be charged with a crime for going ahead wo the proper IRS rulings? Both choices stink... if it was a libertarian organization, im sure you'd agree. Nothing prevented these organizations from participating in the political discourse while their application for 501(c)(4) status was pending. Where do people come up with these mythical arguments? The organization was formed and could do whatever it wanted while it's application was pending because the only determination that was left up to the IRS was whether they'd be considered PAC's under the tax codes or 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations. A PAC can also be a not for profit tax exempt organization just like a 501(c)(4) organization and nothing whatsoever prevented any of these organizations from doing whatever it is that they wanted to do. There would have been no "criminal" indictment if the IRS eventually ruled that the organization was a PAC as opposed to a 501(c)(4) organization. All that would have happened is that the organization would have had do disclose who the donors were because that is required for a PAC. Yes, I would object to a "libertarian" organization that was using its funds to influence the vote of the People from hiding it's donors under a 501(c)(4) exemption. Why would anyone think differently. I want to know, and I have a right to know, who's using their money to influence the outcomes of elections and I don't give a rat's ass who they are.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 16:02:09 GMT
Good argument, but it has nothing to do with the OP. How about the IRS delaying approval for an organizations 501c4 long enough so they can be either (1) let the election pass by without getting involved or (2) be charged with a crime for going ahead wo the proper IRS rulings? Both choices stink... if it was a libertarian organization, im sure you'd agree. Nothing prevented these organizations from participating in the political discourse while their application for 501(c)(4) status was pending. Where do people come up with these mythical arguments? The organization was formed and could do whatever it wanted while it's application was pending because the only determination that was left up to the IRS was whether they'd be considered PAC's under the tax codes or 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations. A PAC can also be a not for profit tax exempt organization just like a 501(c)(4) organization and nothing whatsoever prevented any of these organizations from doing whatever it is that they wanted to do. There would have been no "criminal" indictment if the IRS eventually ruled that the organization was a PAC as opposed to a 501(c)(4) organization. All that would have happened is that the organization would have had do disclose who the donors were because that is required for a PAC. Yes, I would object to a "libertarian" organization that was using its funds to influence the vote of the People from hiding it's donors under a 501(c)(4) exemption. Why would anyone think differently. I want to know, and I have a right to know, who's using their money to influence the outcomes of elections and I don't give a rat's ass who they are. I believe that's why the president and his political cronies turned his former campaign into a 501(c)(4)---so they wouldn't be required to disclose donors. So, don't tell us Democrat can do it, but NOT Republicans. And BTW, 501(c)(4) only allow for a certain amount of politics. But Obama represents his.....and he's out there each and every day demonizing the conservatives in our nation and doing politics. I don't see the IRS or any Democrats or Democrat supporter having a problem with that. So....forgive us, if we say "baloney" to that entire argument that it should have been a PAC. When you guys stop the double standards....we might listen. Otherwise, no.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 16:11:29 GMT
Getting back to the OP......
Lois Lerner should have been fired already. And if Obama really meant it when he said he was "outraged" by all this.....he would have made sure of it. But he's never been outraged by it. He supported it. One only has to revisit the remarks he made at the SOTU speech right after the Citizens United ruling to know exactly how he felt about it an what he wanted done. Plus, there's plenty of video from him on his continual campaign trail where he said the same thing. He even condemned one of them by name.....Americans for Prosperity.
And yes, these federal gov't entities under this president ARE sharing information about conservatives. The IRS also provided info on one of them to a news agency. Otherwise, how could have tax info been known about one of Romney's big donors?
What I find rather telling is that Democrats and their supporters seem to have no problem with what Democrats and Obama do. Never hear of them being targeted, right? And yet, Obama turned his own campaign organization, a PAC.....into a 501(c)(4) called Obama For Action. He was even allowed to keep and use the left over campaign funds and it was approved in under 30 days by none other than Lois Lerner! And if you think it's NOT political, I've got a piece of swampland I'd like to sell you......
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2013 16:26:57 GMT
As I've repeatedly stated all 501(c)(4) organizations should be prohibited from any activities used to influence the vote. BTW we can also note that the National Organization for Marriage is 100% dedicated to banning same-sex marriage and is 100% a political organization but it is classified as a 501(c)(4) organization. So let's ban any political activities by 501(c)(4)'s and get on with it. They're all trying to hide their donors and this is for strictly nefarious reasons. I know it and everyone else knows it so let's stop it completely.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 16:34:30 GMT
In no way is the president or any of his cronies going to call for the action you advocate. All they are intent on doing is making this a one-sided deal; harass ONLY conservatives....delay....or whatever it takes to keep them otherwise occupied. THIS ought to irk you the most.....the unfairness of what they do.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2013 16:37:46 GMT
I don't give a damn what the Democrats or Republicans want when it's based upon the nefarious actions of both parties for their own political gain. I'm tired of both parties not giving a damn about the American Citizens.
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Aug 5, 2013 18:40:11 GMT
The scariest part of this whole fiasco is this... the IRS will be administering Obamacare. Once again in this administration, poor (or fraudulent) performance results in increased responsibility. See Susan Rice for another example.
We couldn't be more screwed.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 5, 2013 19:11:16 GMT
I'm not quite sure what the IRS has to do with "Obamacare" initially as it is going to be on the "honor system" to begin with and Republicans don't have any problem with lying on their tax returns anyway. Additionally the vast majority of Americans already have health insurance and "Obamacare" only addresses about 10% of the work force. It sure won't affect the poor that will receive 100% government subsidies anyway.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 20:11:51 GMT
I don't give a damn what the Democrats or Republicans want when it's based upon the nefarious actions of both parties for their own political gain. I'm tired of both parties not giving a damn about the American Citizens. And many of us are really tired of this administration targeting conservatives and treating them differently than they treat Democrats.
And this administration just wants to move on and trust them that there is no there, there. But how many Democrats were willing to let Nixon do that in 1972-73? I can tell you....NONE. We KNOW now that this scandal goes at least all the way to a president's political appointee and the White House. The president has stated many times now that he didn't have a clue about any of this until he read it in the paper. Well.....we're going to find out by following the trail and placing people under oath if this is a true statement or if he has lied to the American people.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 20:18:35 GMT
I'm not quite sure what the IRS has to do with "Obamacare" initially as it is going to be on the "honor system" to begin with and Republicans don't have any problem with lying on their tax returns anyway. Additionally the vast majority of Americans already have health insurance and "Obamacare" only addresses about 10% of the work force. It sure won't affect the poor that will receive 100% government subsidies anyway. Lie? You mean like the former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner did on HIS tax returns? Oh wait.....he's a Democrat, isn't he? Yep. And was over the IRS too. My, my, my......
BTW, maybe you haven't heard.....but many companies are cutting hours short for employees in order to NOT cover them. Can't blame them for a poorly thought-out plan by the Obama administration. And many will either not increase the number of their employees or will not cover them and elect to pay the fine......and therefore the vast majority of Americans will not get to keep the insurance they have. Republicans tried to tell Obama and Pelosi, but they refuse to listen. Why do you think Obama is now delaying some of this? Because the plan is unworkable as written and MAJOR changes will need to be done IF it's to stay in place. Not to mention it's FAR more costly than anybody was told it would be.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 5, 2013 20:21:54 GMT
The scariest part of this whole fiasco is this... the IRS will be administering Obamacare. Once again in this administration, poor (or fraudulent) performance results in increased responsibility. See Susan Rice for another example. We couldn't be more screwed. Don't give up. There is still plenty of time to either make numerous changes, and/or do away with parts of it. I would advice attending your Congressmen/woman town hall meetings this summer. Even though progressives are planning to disrupt them.....go anyway, and FIGHT to let your voice be heard.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 6, 2013 7:09:42 GMT
From last year's poll on Obamacare: thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/25/505526/poll-most-americans-support-obamacare-provisions/It appears that Americans overwhelmingly want employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance under the provisions of Obamacare so why do Republicans oppose the will of the people? Even as a libertarian I don't have a particular problem with requiring an employer to provide health insurance as a part of an employee compensation package because it doesn't increase the cost of labor for an employer. It just means that part of the compensation is provided for as health insurance as opposed to wages. Additionally it reduces the tax liability of the people that won't have to provide essential health services for many that can't afford health care or that are personally irresponsible by not purchasing insurance or saving for their own health care needs. Yes, a relatively small percentage of employers are cutting hours or choosing to pay the penalty as opposed to providing health insurance during the transitional phase to Obamacare. As the penalties go up, which they will do, then this practice will end and it's not really in the employers best interests to do either. Studies have shown that providing health insurance for employees is very cost effective for an employer but some employers are rather stupid when it comes to what they do for their employees. Perhaps if Republicans in the House were willing to work with the Democrats the problems of employers cutting hours or choosing to pay the fine as opposed to providing the insurance that 72% of the people believe employers should provide could have been eliminated. Ever think about fixing a problem as opposed to whining about it? We still go back to a fundamental problem with the original OP and that is that every IRS agent that actually did the investigations into 501(c)(4) applications, which addressed both liberal and conservative groups, has explicitly stated that partisanship was NOT involved in their actual investigation. We must also accept the fact that allowing any person to donate anonymously to effect the outcome of a vote is WRONG regardless of who does it. If conservatives want to complain then perhaps they should be complaining that more "liberal" organizations should be subjected to greater scrutiny as opposed to whining about their applications being scrutinized. That might be a valid argument but complaining about the IRS doing what it's supposed to do is not a valid complaint.
|
|