Acting Irs Chief Ousted Over Tax Scandal As Obama Vows Change

[JDGRUEN]

RE: F430murci # 204...

Hehehehehehe ahahahahahahah 555555 Wow ! Ingram only needs to be put in Jail along with the rest of her IRS cronies ,,, keep defending the indefensible okay ? It is amusing.

Condemnation without facts. Please, talk facts. Cite facts. Cite dates. Cite laws she broke and exactly what evidence you have that she broke laws.

Watch the Congressional Hearings on this IRS fiasco - there will be more ... but you may not like those 'facts'

I did. I also cited and quoted articles that provided objective facts from reputable commentators and news sources, not political sites.

You are the one saying Ingram should be sent to jail, but you cannot cite facts and identify exactly what laws she broke, how she broke them and the dates in which she broke them.

If there are facts that she broke the law, she should get disbarred and punished for it.

Completely disgraceful, however, for politicians to be calling for her head without any facts and for no other purpose than to slow the momentum of Obamacare.

I could give a hoot less about Obamacare, but I find it disgraceful and reprehensible to go after someone's livelihood, reputation and commitment to her career for no other reason than political motivations. I almost hope there are some facts so as not to be so disappointed in human nature and our political system.

With a little luck Congress will get to the bottom of the IRS transgressions - and determine which ones are criminally punishable. The IRS has been noted many times in recent history as an oppressive organization that exceeds Constitutional bounds. In the late 90's there were calls for dismantling the IRS for these types of abuses... I recall one quote from a politician in Congressional debate on the bill that lead to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, (I paraphrase) "no sane society would invent the IRS" . I await the revelation of facts that will send some IRS employees to prison for their recent activities. It is my studied opinion that this will happen. Edited May 19, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

"freeloaders" ... well when it comes to tax exemption the entire political gamut in the U.S. benefits from being granted such status ...It a situation far beyond Democrat and Republican. I would like to change a lot about the U.S. Government but because of the broad scale use of this status - I don't see it will ever be abolished. Unless hopefully we get to abolish the progressive tax code in America along with a IRS and use other forms of taxation to support the government.

[Publicus]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

Sen Mitch McConnell (and I) agreed with you in 1987, as the following transcript from Meet the Press shows (yesterday, 5-19-2013). However, while I continue to agree with you, Sen McConnell has changed his position. Sen McConnell now opposes the position he took in 1987 and which he stated on Meet the Press in 1987. Now Sen McConnell likes not-for-profit organizations and wants to preserve, protect and defend them.

Unlike Sen McConnell, however, I still don't like them. Many posters here, such as yourself, have expressed their opposition to the whole tax exempt idea concerning not-for-profit political organizations.

Moreover, Sen McConnell now opposes the Disclosure Act, a bill in Congress which would require not-for-profits to reveal their donors upon request (as the bill is currently written).

Sen McConnell's flip flop concerning the not for profit tax exempt organizations is a flippin' failure of consistency and integrity.

Transcript from Meet the Press, Sunday, May 19, 2013, live interview of Sen Mitch McConnell:

David Gregory: Right. It's interesting. the larger issue here, as some have pointed out, is the existence of the 501 c 4 groups. They are involved in politics but they're also involved in some kind of social good. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. You were asked about this issue way back in 1987. I want to play for you what you said then and ask you if it's resonant today.

Sen Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press 1987: There are restrictions now on the kinds of activities that, for example, a 501-c3 and 4 organizations can engage in. They're being abused not just by people on the right, but by most of the so-called charitable organizations who are involved in political activity in this country, who are, in my judgment, involved in arguable violations of their tax-free status and violations of the campaign laws happen to be groups on the left. So that is a problem.

Gregory: So that was a problem then and some are arguing it a problem now as well. Out of all of this do you see more tax reform that addresses whether any of these groups should be tax exempt?

Sen McConnell: It's not whether you have to go back 25 years to find a quote. What we have seen here is an effort on the part of the government to make it difficult for citizens to get organized and to express themselves. There's a bill here in congress called a Disclose Act to try to get at the donors of these groups. I was wrong 25 years ago. I've been right for the last two decades. The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their first amendment rights. And that's what is at the heart of this and that's what the IRS apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax exempt status.

Gregory: I'm saying should these groups, if they're that politically involved, and that's what you identified 25 years ago, if they're that politically involved, they shouldn't have tax exempt status. Should the tax code be simpler in this arena to eliminate these questions?

Sen McConnell: No. I think the citizens groups have a right to organize, express themselves and not have their donor list subject to political supervision. It's clear now that the reason these donor lists and donors are trying to be revealed is so the federal government can target them and shut them up.

Wrong again Sen McConnell, wrong again.

[F430murci]

Was at gym doing card so trying to read subtitles from one of many monitors, but I swear Rove on Fox said that the IRS scadel probably resulted from so low beauracratic employees with a chip on their shoulder and probably cannot connect to President. He went on to say Benghazi, however, was a different story . . .

The guy before him in Fox said people need to stand down on Ingram until there is some evidence to the contrary.

[JDGRUEN]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

Sen Mitch McConnell (and I) agreed with you in 1987, as the following transcript from Meet the Press shows (yesterday, 5-19-2013). However, while I continue to agree with you, Sen McConnell has changed his position. Sen McConnell now opposes the position he took in 1987 and which he stated on Meet the Press in 1987. Now Sen McConnell likes not-for-profit organizations and wants to preserve, protect and defend them.

Unlike Sen McConnell, however, I still don't like them. Many posters here, such as yourself, have expressed their opposition to the whole tax exempt idea concerning not-for-profit political organizations.

Moreover, Sen McConnell now opposes the Disclosure Act, a bill in Congress which would require not-for-profits to reveal their donors upon request (as the bill is currently written).

Sen McConnell's flip flop concerning the not for profit tax exempt organizations is a flippin' failure of consistency and integrity.

Transcript from Meet the Press, Sunday, May 19, 2013, live interview of Sen Mitch McConnell:

David Gregory: Right. It's interesting. the larger issue here, as some have pointed out, is the existence of the 501 c 4 groups. They are involved in politics but they're also involved in some kind of social good. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. You were asked about this issue way back in 1987. I want to play for you what you said then and ask you if it's resonant today.

Sen Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press 1987: There are restrictions now on the kinds of activities that, for example, a 501-c3 and 4 organizations can engage in. They're being abused not just by people on the right, but by most of the so-called charitable organizations who are involved in political activity in this country, who are, in my judgment, involved in arguable violations of their tax-free status and violations of the campaign laws happen to be groups on the left. So that is a problem.

Gregory: So that was a problem then and some are arguing it a problem now as well. Out of all of this do you see more tax reform that addresses whether any of these groups should be tax exempt?

Sen McConnell: It's not whether you have to go back 25 years to find a quote. What we have seen here is an effort on the part of the government to make it difficult for citizens to get organized and to express themselves. There's a bill here in congress called a Disclose Act to try to get at the donors of these groups. I was wrong 25 years ago. I've been right for the last two decades. The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their first amendment rights. And that's what is at the heart of this and that's what the IRS apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax exempt status.

Gregory: I'm saying should these groups, if they're that politically involved, and that's what you identified 25 years ago, if they're that politically involved, they shouldn't have tax exempt status. Should the tax code be simpler in this arena to eliminate these questions?

Sen McConnell: No. I think the citizens groups have a right to organize, express themselves and not have their donor list subject to political supervision. It's clear now that the reason these donor lists and donors are trying to be revealed is so the federal government can target them and shut them up.

Wrong again Sen McConnell, wrong again.

While I am a Conservative who most often votes Republican (and originally from Kentucky), I am not a fan of Sen. McConnell - nor would I vote for him if given the opportunity, However, just as obama's handlers have explained that obama has the inherent right to allow his political and policy positions to 'evolve' over time - then so does Sen. McConnell have the same right. I think it is obvious in light of the recent IRS revelations that government simply cannot be trusted to not misuse names of members and donors to intimidate politically or to deny applications for tax exemptions. The obama Administration currently has the policy that contract bidders who wish to bid to supply goods and services must reveal their political donations,. This is an outrageous policy position tor a 'government of the people' to have and should be abolished. It is also an example of how this government is ready, willing and able to use intimidation to further its political ends.

[Publicus]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

Sen Mitch McConnell (and I) agreed with you in 1987, as the following transcript from Meet the Press shows (yesterday, 5-19-2013). However, while I continue to agree with you, Sen McConnell has changed his position. Sen McConnell now opposes the position he took in 1987 and which he stated on Meet the Press in 1987. Now Sen McConnell likes not-for-profit organizations and wants to preserve, protect and defend them.

Unlike Sen McConnell, however, I still don't like them. Many posters here, such as yourself, have expressed their opposition to the whole tax exempt idea concerning not-for-profit political organizations.

Moreover, Sen McConnell now opposes the Disclosure Act, a bill in Congress which would require not-for-profits to reveal their donors upon request (as the bill is currently written).

Sen McConnell's flip flop concerning the not for profit tax exempt organizations is a flippin' failure of consistency and integrity.

Transcript from Meet the Press, Sunday, May 19, 2013, live interview of Sen Mitch McConnell:

David Gregory: Right. It's interesting. the larger issue here, as some have pointed out, is the existence of the 501 c 4 groups. They are involved in politics but they're also involved in some kind of social good. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. You were asked about this issue way back in 1987. I want to play for you what you said then and ask you if it's resonant today.

Sen Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press 1987: There are restrictions now on the kinds of activities that, for example, a 501-c3 and 4 organizations can engage in. They're being abused not just by people on the right, but by most of the so-called charitable organizations who are involved in political activity in this country, who are, in my judgment, involved in arguable violations of their tax-free status and violations of the campaign laws happen to be groups on the left. So that is a problem.

Gregory: So that was a problem then and some are arguing it a problem now as well. Out of all of this do you see more tax reform that addresses whether any of these groups should be tax exempt?

Sen McConnell: It's not whether you have to go back 25 years to find a quote. What we have seen here is an effort on the part of the government to make it difficult for citizens to get organized and to express themselves. There's a bill here in congress called a Disclose Act to try to get at the donors of these groups. I was wrong 25 years ago. I've been right for the last two decades. The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their first amendment rights. And that's what is at the heart of this and that's what the IRS apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax exempt status.

Gregory: I'm saying should these groups, if they're that politically involved, and that's what you identified 25 years ago, if they're that politically involved, they shouldn't have tax exempt status. Should the tax code be simpler in this arena to eliminate these questions?

Sen McConnell: No. I think the citizens groups have a right to organize, express themselves and not have their donor list subject to political supervision. It's clear now that the reason these donor lists and donors are trying to be revealed is so the federal government can target them and shut them up.

Wrong again Sen McConnell, wrong again.

While I am a Conservative who most often votes Republican (and originally from Kentucky), I am not a fan of Sen. McConnell - nor would I vote for him if given the opportunity, However, just as obama's handlers have explained that obama has the inherent right to allow his political and policy positions to 'evolve' over time - then so does Sen. McConnell have the same right. I think it is obvious in light of the recent IRS revelations that government simply cannot be trusted to not misuse names of members and donors to intimidate politically or to deny applications for tax exemptions. The obama Administration currently has the policy that contract bidders who wish to bid to supply goods and services must reveal their political donations,. This is an outrageous policy position tor a 'government of the people' to have and should be abolished. It is also an example of how this government is ready, willing and able to use intimidation to further its political ends.

It's more likely Sen McConnell "revolved" and rather quickly on the issue of the 501-c3 and 4 political hack organizations once the present expedient opportunism came along. Your being from KY, you must be falling all over yourself due to your native state's junior senator, Rand Paul. Paul and Senate Republicans have been putting the arm to McConnell to let them loose on this one so they can join in the whooping and hollering pile on. Republican and tea party constituents back home in the states are wondering where their hitherto silent R senators are on this one.

After a long and disciplined silence, Senate Republicans last week finally got their wish, as Sen McConnell and Speaker Boehner agreed to stop muzzling Republican senators whereas, by their previous agreement, the House Republicans had been handed the ball. However, now that House Republicans have dropped the ball, it's time for the Senate Republicans to get into the fray, such as Sen Paul, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Lindsey Graham who faces a primary risk in his home state of SC and the rest of the tea party gang in the Senate.

Section 501 3c and d should be abolished from the laws. That's the issue before us that we know is true and real, i.e., fat cat donors anonymously and collectively pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into tax exempt political attack organizations. They skew the political system and the processes of government. This we know.

The proposed Disclosure Act would discourage many anonymous fat cat donors but that is not the answer. The answer to a bad law is to strike it from the books so that the abuses perpetrated by secret fat cat donors and duplicitous political attack organizations is finally stopped.

[JDGRUEN]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

Sen Mitch McConnell (and I) agreed with you in 1987, as the following transcript from Meet the Press shows (yesterday, 5-19-2013). However, while I continue to agree with you, Sen McConnell has changed his position. Sen McConnell now opposes the position he took in 1987 and which he stated on Meet the Press in 1987. Now Sen McConnell likes not-for-profit organizations and wants to preserve, protect and defend them.

Unlike Sen McConnell, however, I still don't like them. Many posters here, such as yourself, have expressed their opposition to the whole tax exempt idea concerning not-for-profit political organizations.

Moreover, Sen McConnell now opposes the Disclosure Act, a bill in Congress which would require not-for-profits to reveal their donors upon request (as the bill is currently written).

Sen McConnell's flip flop concerning the not for profit tax exempt organizations is a flippin' failure of consistency and integrity.

Transcript from Meet the Press, Sunday, May 19, 2013, live interview of Sen Mitch McConnell:

David Gregory: Right. It's interesting. the larger issue here, as some have pointed out, is the existence of the 501 c 4 groups. They are involved in politics but they're also involved in some kind of social good. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. You were asked about this issue way back in 1987. I want to play for you what you said then and ask you if it's resonant today.

Sen Mitch McConnell on Meet the Press 1987: There are restrictions now on the kinds of activities that, for example, a 501-c3 and 4 organizations can engage in. They're being abused not just by people on the right, but by most of the so-called charitable organizations who are involved in political activity in this country, who are, in my judgment, involved in arguable violations of their tax-free status and violations of the campaign laws happen to be groups on the left. So that is a problem.

Gregory: So that was a problem then and some are arguing it a problem now as well. Out of all of this do you see more tax reform that addresses whether any of these groups should be tax exempt?

Sen McConnell: It's not whether you have to go back 25 years to find a quote. What we have seen here is an effort on the part of the government to make it difficult for citizens to get organized and to express themselves. There's a bill here in congress called a Disclose Act to try to get at the donors of these groups. I was wrong 25 years ago. I've been right for the last two decades. The government should not be trying to intimidate citizens who criticize the government from exercising their first amendment rights. And that's what is at the heart of this and that's what the IRS apparently was doing by making it difficult for citizens to get a legitimate tax exempt status.

Gregory: I'm saying should these groups, if they're that politically involved, and that's what you identified 25 years ago, if they're that politically involved, they shouldn't have tax exempt status. Should the tax code be simpler in this arena to eliminate these questions?

Sen McConnell: No. I think the citizens groups have a right to organize, express themselves and not have their donor list subject to political supervision. It's clear now that the reason these donor lists and donors are trying to be revealed is so the federal government can target them and shut them up.

Wrong again Sen McConnell, wrong again.

While I am a Conservative who most often votes Republican (and originally from Kentucky), I am not a fan of Sen. McConnell - nor would I vote for him if given the opportunity, However, just as obama's handlers have explained that obama has the inherent right to allow his political and policy positions to 'evolve' over time - then so does Sen. McConnell have the same right. I think it is obvious in light of the recent IRS revelations that government simply cannot be trusted to not misuse names of members and donors to intimidate politically or to deny applications for tax exemptions. The obama Administration currently has the policy that contract bidders who wish to bid to supply goods and services must reveal their political donations,. This is an outrageous policy position tor a 'government of the people' to have and should be abolished. It is also an example of how this government is ready, willing and able to use intimidation to further its political ends.

It's more likely Sen McConnell "revolved" and rather quickly on the issue of the 501-c3 and 4 political hack organizations once the present expedient opportunism came along. Your being from KY, you must be falling all over yourself due to your native state's junior senator, Rand Paul. Paul and Senate Republicans have been putting the arm to McConnell to let them loose on this one so they can join in the whooping and hollering pile on. Republican and tea party constituents back home in the states are wondering where their hitherto silent R senators are on this one.

After a long and disciplined silence, Senate Republicans last week finally got their wish, as Sen McConnell and Speaker Boehner agreed to stop muzzling Republican senators whereas, by their previous agreement, the House Republicans had been handed the ball. However, now that House Republicans have dropped the ball, it's time for the Senate Republicans to get into the fray, such as Sen Paul, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Lindsey Graham who faces a primary risk in his home state of SC and the rest of the tea party gang in the Senate.

Section 501 3c and d should be abolished from the laws. That's the issue before us that we know is true and real, i.e., fat cat donors anonymously and collectively pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into tax exempt political attack organizations. They skew the political system and the processes of government. This we know.

The proposed Disclosure Act would discourage many anonymous fat cat donors but that is not the answer. The answer to a bad law is to strike it from the books so that the abuses perpetrated by secret fat cat donors and duplicitous political attack organizations is finally stopped.

:Section 501 3c and d should be abolished from the laws. That's the issue before us..." Really - it is? I thought it was IRS corruption and harassment. Well - you can wish for this to happen - but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting ...

[Jingthing]

501 3c should indeed be trashed for all. The republicans only want to milk a so called scandal for political gains. They aren't interested in a solution. Tax reform is a solution and part of that should be trashing 501 3c.

[JDGRUEN]

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top

EXCERPT:

The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.

Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its

abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Publicus]

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top
EXCERPT:

The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.

Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its
abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.



But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I see the link you provide clearly states "Opinion."

Opinions are like something else each of us has, if you know what I mean.

Let's see some facts. Innuendo Joe McCarthy style doesn't cut it and Americans know it.

As I'd said in a previous post, there are scientific surveys coming out in addition to last Friday's Gallup Poll which also find after all of the Republican party flailing and bellowing, Prez Obama's standing with the public remains high and strong.

CNN Poll: Obama approval rating unharmed by controversies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/19/cnn-poll-obama-approval-rating-unharmed-by-controversies/

Which is why, as I point out above, Sen McConnell and Speaker Boehner have agreed to release previously restrained Senate Republicans to start hollering and flapping their arms - the R's in the House had been handed the ball and have fumbled it.

A picture of the fumbling House R's during a break in their hearings speaks a thousand words:

Edited May 19, 2013 by Publicus

[Exsexyman]

What the average American doesn't seem to understand is that the rest of the world is looking on at this, and howling with laughter! The cradle of democracy! Yeah right!

[Jingthing]

What the average American doesn't seem to understand is that the rest of the world is looking on at this, and howling with laughter! The cradle of democracy! Yeah right!

What aspect specifically are they laughing at?

Edited May 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[F430murci]

What the average American doesn't seem to understand is that the rest of the world is looking on at this, and howling with laughter! The cradle of democracy! Yeah right!

Actually, the rest of the world has their own problems and could probably care less, especially Thailand with coups, red shirt, yellow shirts, proxy and etc. US will be okay and what others think really doesn't matter if they don't live here.

[F430murci]

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top

EXCERPT:

The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.

Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its

abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Haha, Kim Strassel always has nice things to say about Obama. Just more speculation and innuendo and I doubt Obama gave two craps about any those companies at issue. According to Strassel, Obama was speaking in code and dropping all of these companies names during public addresses and the IRS knew what to do. Uh, really??? Does any one really take this seriously?

Well, maybe she has tapes of all of his public addresses naming the 70 companies that the IRS needed to target. Maybe it's in pig Latin or we need to play the tapes backwards to hear it.

Edited May 19, 2013 by F430murci

[JDGRUEN]

Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top

EXCERPT:

The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.

Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its

abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I see the link you provide clearly states "Opinion."

Opinions are like something else each of us has, if you know what I mean.

Let's see some facts. Innuendo Joe McCarthy style doesn't cut it and Americans know it.

As I'd said in a previous post, there are scientific surveys coming out in addition to last Friday's Gallup Poll which also find after all of the Republican party flailing and bellowing, Prez Obama's standing with the public remains high and strong.

CNN Poll: Obama approval rating unharmed by controversies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/19/cnn-poll-obama-approval-rating-unharmed-by-controversies/

Which is why, as I point out above, Sen McConnell and Speaker Boehner have agreed to release previously restrained Senate Republicans to start hollering and flapping their arms - the R's in the House had been handed the ball and have fumbled it.

A picture of the fumbling House R's during a break in their hearings speaks a thousand words:

You speak of opinion derogatorily and you read fact from a snapshot ... How funny... And CNN is a totally NON Biased news organization whose polls are never biased by over sampling and other tricks --- totally laughable ...There are other polls stating that the public is highly in favor of continuing the IRS and Benghazi Investigations but no reason to post the link - you would automatically discount the source ... And you of all TVF members never ever post opinion - Give me a break. Forums like TVF are filled with opinion and filled with what people CLAIM as fact ... absolutely FACT without a doubt - never from screened sources that tend to support one's point of view.... no never ... Barf.

[JDGRUEN]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

What’s worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

[F430murci]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Whats worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Well of course. She was in charge of that department, not Ingram. Funny how conservatives and tea party went after Ingram instead who has been in Obamacare team since December 2010.

[Publicus]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

What’s worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Hey, the twit deserves to go, so get thee to a nunnery.

And from the Washington Post report of the CNN/ORC scientific poll, linked above, "The good news for Obama is that 61 percent said they believe that what the president said about the IRS matter is mostly or completely true. The good news for the GOP is that 54 percent said they think congressional Republicans are reacting appropriately to the episode." I'd call that a balanced scientific finding and report of it.

The CNN/ORG scientific survey further found:

POLL 6 -5- May 17-18, 2013 2

13. As you may know, the IRS targeted conservative political groups for greater scrutiny of their applications for tax-exempt status. How important an issue do you think this is to the nation -- very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?

May 17-18

2013

Very important 55%

Somewhat important 30%

Not too important 10%

Not important at all 5%

No opinion 1%

Although only 55% in the scientific survey think the IRS matter is "very important," I believe the overall response shows a fair shake by the CNN scientific survey. (BTW, put me in among the 30% on this one. I'd suspect tho that you are off the charts.)

And although I'm in the large minority on this next one, the findings of this question seem to show the public is giving the Republicans in the House an even break, if not better:

"Do you think the Republicans in Congress are overreacting to this matter or are they reacting appropriately? "

May 17-18

2013

Overreacting 42%

Reacting appropriately 54%

No opinion 4%

One really doesn't look too good in the modern era when he tries to take a long sword to run the messenger through.

[Publicus]

JDGRUEN Posted Today, 06:08

You speak of opinion derogatorily and you read fact from a snapshot ... How funny... And CNN is a totally NON Biased news organization whose polls are never biased by over sampling and other tricks --- totally laughable ...There are other polls stating that the public is highly in favor of continuing the IRS and Benghazi Investigations but no reason to post the link - you would automatically discount the source ... And you of all TVF members never ever post opinion - Give me a break. Forums like TVF are filled with opinion and filled with what people CLAIM as fact ... absolutely FACT without a doubt - never from screened sources that tend to support one's point of view.... no never ... Barf.

______________________________________________________________________________________________The following is my reply

I guess I can understand your "barf" so let me advise that those with sensitive stomachs should exercise discretion in reading the news reports that follow. I'd remind you however that some pages back at this thread I'd said that, in addition to the Gallup scientific survey, more were being released and that the news for the Republicans in Congress was less than good.

So here goes, which means you may want to head for the, well, head. (That of course is a Navy term - In the army we call it a latrine. However, your profile indicates you would know that. Either way, you'd best be off and running now.)


Obama approval rating higher than GOP congressional leaders: Poll


President Obama continues to enjoy a better approval rating than Republican leaders in Congress, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People.

The survey found that Mr. Obama’s job performance climbed from 47 percent in March to 51 percent, and that just 22 percent approve of the job performance of GOP leaders in Congress.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/8/obama-approval-higher-gop-congressional-leaders/#ixzz2Tn7GmexD



And by my twin brother, Politicus, who writes in his news journal PoliticusUSA (see link below):


Scandals Backfire on Republicans as Obama’s Approval Ratings Go Up

These “scandals” haven’t hurt President Obama at all. The most logical reasons for this are that people aren’t paying attention, and those who are don’t believe the Republicans. President Obama has always been well liked trusted by a majority in this country. For years, Republicans have tried and repeatedly failed to damage the relationship that the president has with a majority of Americans.

President Obama has been consistently viewed by the majority in this country as honest. This hasn’t stopped Republicans from continuing to damage their own brand by trying to portray the president as dishonest, or covering up something.

This poll reveals that congressional Republicans are walking a fine line on the IRS scandal. People support them
investigating the IRS, but they don’t support turning the investigation into an Obama witch hunt. Since House Republicans excel at self-destruction, they should be expected to try to link Obama to the IRS in their future hearings.

The scandals appear to be backfiring, and setting a dangerous trap for Republicans. The fundamental political dynamic of President Obama being much more popular than the Republican Party is shaping these numbers. If the unpopular congressional Republicans continue to attack Obama with scandals, they run the risk of making the president more popular and drive his poll numbers up

http://www.politicususa.com/scandals-backfire-republicans-obamas-approval-ratings.html

(It is Politicus writing the piece, but for the record I must assure you I haven't any twin brother . )

Edited May 20, 2013 by Publicus

[geriatrickid]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

"freeloaders" ... well when it comes to tax exemption the entire political gamut in the U.S. benefits from being granted such status ...It a situation far beyond Democrat and Republican. I would like to change a lot about the U.S. Government but because of the broad scale use of this status - I don't see it will ever be abolished. Unless hopefully we get to abolish the progressive tax code in America along with a IRS and use other forms of taxation to support the government.

Well, maybe this issue will give rise to some incentive that will cause Americans to examine the tax code and all the loopholes and exemptions granted. I am a fiscal conservative and believe that only charitable groups that use the large majority of funds for charitable purposes should be given tax exemptions or charitable status. Get rid of the loopholes, have a minimum tax on investment income and tax rates can eventually be reduced.

[JDGRUEN]

More to the story ...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2013/05/19/something-doesnt-add-up-n1600915

... look what the anonymous (IRS) staff member also said:

"We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . .That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.” (emphasis added)

... then, the IG report, page 7, goes on to read that the team of specialists changed them back:

"However, the team of specialists subsequently changed the criteria in January 2012 without executive approval because they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad. The January 2012 criteria again focused on the policy position of organizations instead of tax-exempt laws and Treasury regulations." (emphasis added)

Edited May 20, 2013 by JDGRUEN

[chuckd]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Whats worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Well of course. She was in charge of that department, not Ingram. Funny how conservatives and tea party went after Ingram instead who has been in Obamacare team since December 2010.

It would seem this article believes Ms. Ingram was in fact actually in charge of the tax exempt department through 2012, which I believe is contrary to your earlier post that she left that department in 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’

By Ben Wolfgang-The Washington Times Sunday, May 19, 2013

A besieged White House dug in its heels Sunday and defended figures at the center of the unfolding Internal Revenue Service scandal while reiterating that President Obama knew nothing of the misdeeds inside the agency.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.”

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

"Mr. Pfeiffer added that a top-down investigation of the IRS will examine Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/white-house-adviser-nothing-suggests-irs-official-/#ixzz2TnmDFL7e

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operative words in this article are:

" She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office"

...and...

" Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

So, how about that annual bonus increase from $7,000 in 2009 to $34,400 in 2010...or is that question too slanderous to ask.

[Publicus]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Whats worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Well of course. She was in charge of that department, not Ingram. Funny how conservatives and tea party went after Ingram instead who has been in Obamacare team since December 2010.

It would seem this article believes Ms. Ingram was in fact actually in charge of the tax exempt department through 2012, which I believe is contrary to your earlier post that she left that department in 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’

By Ben Wolfgang-The Washington Times Sunday, May 19, 2013

A besieged White House dug in its heels Sunday and defended figures at the center of the unfolding Internal Revenue Service scandal while reiterating that President Obama knew nothing of the misdeeds inside the agency.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.”

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

"Mr. Pfeiffer added that a top-down investigation of the IRS will examine Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/white-house-adviser-nothing-suggests-irs-official-/#ixzz2TnmDFL7e

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operative words in this article are:

" She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office"

...and...

" Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

So, how about that annual bonus increase from $7,000 in 2009 to $34,400 in 2010...or is that question too slanderous to ask.

It's more innuendo, more of being suggestive; more vacuous speculation. There aren't any meaningful or significant facts, no related realities, no connecting of any dots because the dots are too few and too low down on the totem pole..

No one here can answer your question and the Republicans in the House can't find the right questions with both hands. Republicans in Washington are failing again to separate the majority of Americans from Prez Obama - they can never succeed. Republicans in Washington are dim bulbs, trying the same failed nefarious purposes over again and again and again. The country has had four and a half years of it now. The country is tuned out.

The House's pitchers are getting hit pretty hard so Republican senators are warming up in the bullpen to come in soon, try to salvage the whole overblown political exercise.

Republicans can only investigate, can only raise hell, can only accuse, distort, bend the rules, twist the truth. It's a pattern that goes back to 1994 and it cost Newt the Toot his newly won speakership. John Boehner has taken notice.

The R's in the House have fumbled this all over the playing field. Boehner wants out, which is why he's yielding to the Senate to find the ball, try to pick it up and to try to regain lost yardage.

House Republicans are like mice on a treadmill, going like hell but getting nowhere. We'll know when the Republicans have hit the wall when they start openly accusing Prez Obama of giving the orders, even though there will be no facts or documents to support the Republican's wild claims.

[chuckd]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Whats worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Well of course. She was in charge of that department, not Ingram. Funny how conservatives and tea party went after Ingram instead who has been in Obamacare team since December 2010.

It would seem this article believes Ms. Ingram was in fact actually in charge of the tax exempt department through 2012, which I believe is contrary to your earlier post that she left that department in 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’

By Ben Wolfgang-The Washington Times Sunday, May 19, 2013

A besieged White House dug in its heels Sunday and defended figures at the center of the unfolding Internal Revenue Service scandal while reiterating that President Obama knew nothing of the misdeeds inside the agency.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.”

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

"Mr. Pfeiffer added that a top-down investigation of the IRS will examine Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/white-house-adviser-nothing-suggests-irs-official-/#ixzz2TnmDFL7e

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operative words in this article are:

" She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office"

...and...

" Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

So, how about that annual bonus increase from $7,000 in 2009 to $34,400 in 2010...or is that question too slanderous to ask.

It's more innuendo, more of being suggestive; more vacuous speculation. There aren't any meaningful or significant facts, no related realities, no connecting of any dots because the dots are too few and too low down on the totem pole..

No one here can answer your question and the Republicans in the House can't find the right questions with both hands. Republicans in Washington are failing again to separate the majority of Americans from Prez Obama - they can never succeed. Republicans in Washington are dim bulbs, trying the same failed nefarious purposes over again and again and again. The country has had four and a half years of it now. The country is tuned out.

The House's pitchers are getting hit pretty hard so Republican senators are warming up in the bullpen to come in soon, try to salvage the whole overblown political exercise.

Republicans can only investigate, can only raise hell, can only accuse, distort, bend the rules, twist the truth. It's a pattern that goes back to 1994 and it cost Newt the Toot his newly won speakership. John Boehner has taken notice.

The R's in the House have fumbled this all over the playing field. Boehner wants out, which is why he's yielding to the Senate to find the ball, try to pick it up and to try to regain lost yardage.

House Republicans are like mice on a treadmill, going like hell but getting nowhere. We'll know when the Republicans have hit the wall when they start openly accusing Prez Obama of giving the orders, even though there will be no facts or documents to support the Republican's wild claims.

I am supposing you find nothing suspicious or questionable about a federal employee receiving a 500% increase in her annual bonus the same year her department starts questioning conservative applications for tax exempt status?

I am further supposing you don't know this simple fact:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awards in excess of $10,000 per individual must be approved by the Office of Personnel Management. AWARDS IN EXCESS OF $25,000 REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL. (Caps added)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/legal-citations/

[JDGRUEN]

I erred when using the term charitable status and should have used tax exempt status. . However, this does not take away from the fact that the political groups obtaining tax exempt status are freeloaders. A 501©(4) classification means a social welfare, tax-exempt organization. In tax law, these groups are prohibited from working on behalf of individual political campaigns and are supposed to be issue-oriented. I hardly think political groups advocating their respective views are a true social welfare organization.

IMO the typical taxpayer is going to say, <deleted>, why are these people not paying taxes. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to eliminate the tax exempt status. Everyone should be paying their taxes, especially the political groups. This is what the issue will mean to the taxpayers. The fact that political groups can obtain this tax exempt status will come as an eye opener to many voters and will at some point become the bigger issue. A true conservative is going to oppose such tax exempt status, although it has worked wonders for the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove and some of the big labour unions and business groups.

However,

"freeloaders" ... well when it comes to tax exemption the entire political gamut in the U.S. benefits from being granted such status ...It a situation far beyond Democrat and Republican. I would like to change a lot about the U.S. Government but because of the broad scale use of this status - I don't see it will ever be abolished. Unless hopefully we get to abolish the progressive tax code in America along with a IRS and use other forms of taxation to support the government.

Well, maybe this issue will give rise to some incentive that will cause Americans to examine the tax code and all the loopholes and exemptions granted. I am a fiscal conservative and believe that only charitable groups that use the large majority of funds for charitable purposes should be given tax exemptions or charitable status. Get rid of the loopholes, have a minimum tax on investment income and tax rates can eventually be reduced.

What you posted is just wishful thinking on your part. There is no evidence that the current public perception is focused in that direction at all. It is just the opposite. The public perception is that the IRS is at it again - being punitive thugs that need to be reined in. And - going off on your tangent is just another attempt to change the unpleasant subject.

[geriatrickid]

When all is said and done, I expect that this will blow over by November as much as the GOP wants to keep the issue alive. The Administration's swift response is going to squash this.

[JDGRUEN]

When all is said and done, I expect that this will blow over by November as much as the GOP wants to keep the issue alive. The Administration's swift response is going to squash this.

If the Administration is able to 'squash ' this...Hmmmm? You mean as long as this issue is taken off the 24 hour news cycle and the American people are not thinking about it...then 'Squashing' is preferred to a creating 'remedy' whereby those in the IRS and perhaps any obama Administration employees who are guilty of politically and biasedly targeting American people and groups are punished and safeguards are put in place. Just get the controversy off the news cycle and don't bring anyone to justice for abusing the American public under the color of Governmental authority. Sounds like typical obama Democrat policy to me. The end justifies the means... regardless the harm it does to American Democracy...

[JDGRUEN]

EXCERPT of weblink below ...

March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon
time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way: Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.” The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.The IG report wrote it up this way:

“April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” n short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report. Read more via The American Spectator...

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/bombshell-obama-met-with-irs-union-leader-day-before-they-targeted-conservatives

[F430murci]

Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout

posted at 4:49 pm on May 17, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Whats worse than a high-ranking federal bureaucrat dishonestly setting up a planted question in order to stage a modified limited hangout in order to downplay an explosive scandal coming on quickly? Using a lobbyist to do it:...

...Reps. Joe Crowley (D-Queens) and Sander Levin (D-Mich), top Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, on Friday demanded the resignation of Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations....

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/05/17/two-house-dems-demand-lerner-resignation-after-using-lobbyist-to-stage-modified-limited-hangout/

Well of course. She was in charge of that department, not Ingram. Funny how conservatives and tea party went after Ingram instead who has been in Obamacare team since December 2010.

It would seem this article believes Ms. Ingram was in fact actually in charge of the tax exempt department through 2012, which I believe is contrary to your earlier post that she left that department in 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House aide: ‘Nothing that suggests’ IRS official at center of scandal ‘did anything wrong’

By Ben Wolfgang-The Washington Times Sunday, May 19, 2013

A besieged White House dug in its heels Sunday and defended figures at the center of the unfolding Internal Revenue Service scandal while reiterating that President Obama knew nothing of the misdeeds inside the agency.

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on four Sunday morning political talk shows, offered strong support for Sarah Hall Ingram, who led the agency’s tax-exempt division as it admittedly targeted conservative groups. She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office, tasked with implementing “Obamacare.”

...FROM THE ARTICLE...

"Mr. Pfeiffer added that a top-down investigation of the IRS will examine Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/white-house-adviser-nothing-suggests-irs-official-/#ixzz2TnmDFL7e

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operative words in this article are:

" She recently was promoted to chief of the health care reform office"

...and...

" Ms. Ingram’s 2009 to 2012 tenure as head of the tax-exempt division."

So, how about that annual bonus increase from $7,000 in 2009 to $34,400 in 2010...or is that question too slanderous to ask.

Ingram was assigned to oversee the health care law in December of 2010 and six months before the inspector general's report said her subordinate was notified of the targeting. Everything else is speculaiton and innuendo at this point.

Did her official title change in December of 2010? No.

Did her duties shift from tax exempt to new health care law in December of 2010? Yes.

Did she still retain any duties whatsoever over tax exempt and, in partcular the 501©(4) determinations? So far, there is no evidence confirming this which I would think we be extremely easy to confirm and it appears Lois Lerner was making high level decision in department in mid 2011 when she approved Obama's brother's charity in May 2011.

Did Ingram's bonuses in 2009 and 2010 result from application of the challenged classifcations? The classifications apparently did not arise until 2011 and I have seen no evidence or proof from you that the classifications existed in 2010.

Was Ingram's 2010 bonus comparable to a singing bonus for new assignment and delegation of new responsibilities? Perhaps. Makes more sense than being paid bonus for new appointment than being paid for something that had yet to occur.

When did abuse of 501©(4) become as huge issue? Apparently in 2011 when it was discovered that conservative groups were abusing the classiciation to secretly channel large sums of tax free contirbutions to campaigns in 2010.

Were Ingram's bonuses in 2011 and 2012 related to her new role as overseeing Obamacare or new health care law or were they related to something more nefarious? Makes sense that pay relates to promotion and delgation of new responsibilities under such a massive project. There is no evidence to the contrary. Use of speculation, innuendo and political motivation to tarnish someone's reputation, ruin their career and impact their livelihood is reprehensible.

[F430murci]

EXCERPT of weblink below ...

March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon

time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way: Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30 In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.” The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America.The IG report wrote it up this way:

“April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” n short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report. Read more via The American Spectator...

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/bombshell-obama-met-with-irs-union-leader-day-before-they-targeted-conservatives

Haha, I really have to laugh at your cites and what you read.

Nevertheless, interesting, but I cannot envision why he would go to Union leader for something like this. Makes more sense he would be talking to Union leader about using IRS staff for new health care laws. I would be much more impressed if he met with Ingram, Miller, Shuler et al.

Seriously grasping at straws now. A bit like 911 conspiracy evidence. Jeez, I gotta retire from this whatever it is and get some work done. You guys go save the world from the evil empire, our oprressive leader and his group of thugs. . . . Haha, I just hope all of this scandel stuff does not mess up the market any time soon.

Edited May 20, 2013 by F430murci