What is it about Presidential 2nd terms? A President gets re-elected, and all hell seems to break loose.
Witness the mushrooming scandal over the Internal Revenue Service singling-out certain non-profit groups for its magnifying glass, searching out key words such as "Tea Party" and "Patriots", but later, shifting criteria such as "organizations involved with political lobbying or advocacy", or "political-action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement".
A key question: Will people from ALL sides of the political spectrum - but particularly the politically involved from Right, Left, Libertarian, etc. - see this as Big Brother intruding on 1st Amendment rights, trying to intimidate through the hammer of the IRS? Or despite recent Right--Left consensus on such issues as drones, is the ideological divide now such a wide yawning abyss, will the protests and demands for investigations come almost completely from the Right?
Check out this POLITICO article about Presidents' 2nd-term "curses"...
Once again Allan Loudell demonstrates his covert right-wing bias. This was done by a Bush appointee in the Cincinnati field office. When the higher-ups found out, they stopped it, acknowledged it and apologized. But this post is an example of how right-wing talk show hosts like to twist things and inflame things to suit their own agenda.
Of course, people like the Kochs who fund and pull the strings of the Tea Party do play fast and loose with the tax code and should be subject to scrutiny.
Mon, May 13, 2013 8:24am
I just wanted to go on record. I applaud the use of force as retaliation to these groups that think you can debase America, debase the president, spit on the American flag, and nothing will happen to you. I'm deeply, deeply disappointed that none of these Tea Party Patriots went to jail...
Imagine, Imagine. Thinking you could say the president was from Kenya and must be removed from office by force if necessary, and that people need to take up arms and through insurrection remove the rightly-elected officials out of office... and not get punished for it?..
I say here, here! These groups of insurrectionists, these traitors called the Tea Party deserve, absolutely deserve, this treatment. I speak for all of America when I say, thank goodness, we have a president who had the fortitude to do something about it. These people are trash, garbage. They should all be in jail.
We had the exact similar incident of the same people, exact same people, except they didn't speak about their revolutionary cause who set off two bombs in Boston. And you think we are not going to look harder at people who profess to be traitors?
Of course we are. Of course we should.
Mon, May 13, 2013 8:36am
Best put in perspective with a rhetorical question? Is it equally an outrage, if we applied the same technique to a mullah in New York, who was preaching he would take down the government through insurrection?
No. In both cases, it is what 99% of America would expect us to do. Just because your views are so horribly distorted and extreme, that you can't possibly find a majority come to your consensus, gives you no right to destroy the country for everyone else, because you are a big baby who" whaaaa, can't get what you want."
Hello! The reason you can't get what you want, is simply because you are too weird... Duh, go crawl in a hole, Tea Party Mullahs...
Mon, May 13, 2013 9:09am
This is corruption at the highest level. Not only are the stacked IRS audits reprehensible, but I believe very much this is the standard modus operandi of the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS investigating the background of Tea Party people is reprehensible, immoral and --should be --- illegal.
Mon, May 13, 2013 9:56am
teatime: You all don't mind when Republicans do it. Actually, this time a Republican did do it.
This morning a legitimate news organization, NPR, discussed how Republicans are using Benghazi and the IRS as the basis of their campaign to discredit the administration (and give us a few more years of deadlock). And what are the last two topics right-wing talk show host Allan Loudell featured: Why, Benghazi and the IRS. Coincidence?
Mon, May 13, 2013 11:05am
I'm sorry but I don't recall any Tea Partiers being arrested for any acts resembling treason...OWS supporters on the other hand have had several violent individuals arrested...some for attempting to blow up a bridge, some others were arrested in Greenich Village with bombs and weapons to terrorize NYC...and no rapes have occured at Tea Party rallies vs. OWS.
But, neither of these groups should be singled-out by the IRS. IF they are breaking the law, then use local police and FBI to catch and prosecute them. Would you like it if the next administration differed from your point-of-views and used the IRS to come after you, your friends, and your family?
Mon, May 13, 2013 11:20am
Bill Smith: I do mind when a Republican does something wrong, and I believe they should throw the book at him.
Having said that, I would also note that this particular issue is non-partisan, in that the IRS doesn't have a party allegiance and is not political by its nature.
Mon, May 13, 2013 5:50pm
Earl: Tricky Dick used the IRS to go after "enemies" in a systematic and deliberate program. This is one rogue middle manager (appointed by Dubya) but you want to make it about Obama. His people caught it and stopped it. What more do you want?
It's impossible for the IRS to do anything about Occupy since it was not a structured organization with articles of incorporation, books and officers. It was a bunch of people who showed up. Some got together in informal groups and planned things. There is no hierarchy so if a handful of wackos who attended some demonstrations decide to blow up something, it's not part of any organized movement. Double standard again. Some of these plotters probably went to church but you and MikeFromDelaware would be arguing with me if I blamed Christianity. (Although you all are very willing to blame Islam when somebody makes a bomb.)
Mon, May 13, 2013 6:39pm
Make no mistake about it. Obama ORDERED these audits of conservative groups, and if he isn't stopped, he'll go after the church next. How do I know this? One only need look at how he destroyed the reputation of a good and godly woman, Sarah Palin, in order to deceive the American public into voting for him, and he's still trying to deceive us now. Well, he can't deceive me. This president is clearly a tool of Satan to destroy the greatest country ever known to man. So my question for all of you is: Are you going to stand up for your country, or are you just going to write me hate mail about my homophobia, bigotry, etc., etc.? The choice is yours, people!
Mon, May 13, 2013 6:56pm
Pizza is off his meds again.
Mon, May 13, 2013 8:06pm
billsmith: In the interest of full disclosure, I only take one medication - lisinopril, 10 MG, for treatment of high blood pressure. One a day, just like the vitamin!
Mon, May 13, 2013 8:42pm
kavips: It's Obama and liberals that should go to jail, not tea party patriots. In fact, I'll take it up one more notch. They should be deported to Mexico along with the 11 million illegals they're trying to keep here as a permanent underclass so they can guarantee themselves a political dynasty.
Mon, May 13, 2013 9:44pm
Mr. Pizza.. If Liberals got deported, you'd go bankrupt. No one then would buy your pizza... The truth is that Liberals don't exist anymore. There are only two groups, Extremely dangerous right wingers, and normal everyday human beings.... We can't send the entire country back to Mexico, as you propose; instead, we should ship the dangerous elements of Right Wing Conservatism, to Grand Cayman Island. Let the Cayman's have them... Ever since conservatism rose to power our country has taken a nose-dive. Exposing conservatisms as a false god, a fake science,is the only way our nation will redeem itself back into the graces with which we were once held in esteem.
Of course, you as always are welcome to retreat into your enclaves (Cecil County, lol) and who knows, maybe one day we will come visit you, like we go up to Lancaster to see the Amish.
Mon, May 13, 2013 9:50pm
Actually I agree with Mr. Pizza in thinking that Obama ordered those audits. Just my opinion and I have no facts to back it up, but that is exactly what I would do if any stupid billionaire with really bad hair tried to impugn I wasn't born in this country... He would suffer. He would suffer bad. It is extremely good they they did too. Who knows how much damage they would have caused this nation if they'd been allowed to roam unfettered? They were nothing more, or less, than a pit bull kicked and whipped and only trained for dog fighting, who got let out on the street... They need to be constrained as much as possible for every time they open their mouths, this nation falls backward 5 years.. :)
Mon, May 13, 2013 9:59pm
kavips: I'll have you know that "evil" rich people of both political persuasions buy my pizza. In fact, here's some music by one of my rich and famous customers:
Mon, May 13, 2013 10:29pm
I agree with kavips & mrpizza...Obama used the IRS as his personal "enforcement arm" against his "enemies" just like Nixon...so how long till the impeachment hearings begin? FORWARD we go.
and kavips, do you hate all billionaires or only non-Liberal billionaires? Is Al Gore an OK billionaire? How about George Soros?...
They can always ship "crazy right wingers" to Texas or some other state that attracts freedom, low taxes, jobs and less govt...and liberals can keep all the large bankrupt cities. Everyone gets their fair share.
Mon, May 13, 2013 10:31pm
Well at least this political banter digs up good music, even if there are sound problems going on.. lol. Speaking of which, did you see the moon these past two nights? Just a sliver balanced by Jupiter... awesome.
Mon, May 13, 2013 10:49pm
Earl. No one is going to impeach anyone. Of course we all realize it can go through the House, because Republicans don't care about America, never had, never will, and will pass anything no matter how ridiculous it is, but it can't get 67 votes in the Democratic controlled Senate with 55 Democrats voting in bloc against it... Just foolish.
But of course every single Republican by definition IS foolish, otherwise they'd either be independent or a Democrat by now... 47% of America doesn't matter.. sheesh..
And it is a miscaricaturisation to say I hate billionaires.. I don't; they play a valid role in our society. The problem is not with them, it is with the Congress they've bought that keeps doing what is best for billionaires which is killing off the rest of our country. Republicans are the RoundUp of the middle class, killing us off as weeds so that billionaires don't have to deal with a middle class making policy anymore...
That is the problem. I would be the billionaires biggest fan if we would tax them at 80%, including capital gains and their estates.... Woo Hoo for billionaires I'd say.. I love billionaires! Now we can start to get our country back..
Tell me Earl, would you be slightly upset if a drug dealer put a gun to the back of your neck and took your wallet, watch, and wool pants.. or would you say,... I love criminals; they are such wonderful people, they need to make a living too?
When you come out of your fog, you will understand that is why policy needs to fence in these people who do no good but siphon money from out of the working economy... Tax them, tax them, tax them and America becomes the biggest and healthiest economy in the world.
Mon, May 13, 2013 11:46pm
"Tell me Earl, would you be slightly upset if a drug dealer put a gun to the back of your neck and took your wallet, watch, and wool pants.. or would you say,... I love criminals; they are such wonderful people, they need to make a living too?
When you come out of your fog, you will understand that is why policy needs to fence in these people who do no good but siphon money from out of the working economy... Tax them, tax them, tax them and America becomes the biggest and healthiest economy in the world."
kavips: And this is where we disagree...you see the greedy rich as the ultimate "bad guys" and while I agree the elite (left and right) are a huge part of the problem of our country, they cannot compete with govt for corruption, greed and power-lust.
In your drug dealer analogy I would see big govt as the Zetas and the uber-rich would be a low-level dealer. One will rob you of your wallet, the other more powerful one can take everything (you have seen what happens if you are a Tea Party organization, a Constitutionalist, or a Conservative) The IRS will destroy you.
If you truly want everyone to pay their "fair share", rather than taxing the rich more (which they will avoid with loopholes anyway), why not tax all at the same rate, get rid of the loopholes and trash the existing tax code. The rich will pay a lot more than me and those who are lower income brackets will have to pay into the system as well...of course that is a perfect recipe for a politician to lose big. Those who now pay zero taxes will never vote for someone who wants to "raise their taxes".
Tue, May 14, 2013 12:22am
Nixon’s articles of impeachment included IRS scandal:
I've been reading all this and someone's head at the IRS needs to roll, NOT the Prez.
It seems that we just go from one crisis [scandal] to another with all administrations now, be they GOP or DEM. The party out-of-power seems to spend a ton of time trying to find any and all dirt to throw on the party in power.
Is this what we get for the great paychecks, fantastic benefits, perks, privledges, etc., etc., that these clowns are NOT doing the people's business, but rather creating a soap opera that includes sexual escapades, scandal of any kind, always the appearance of wrongdoing, etc., etc., but rarely getting any real work that they were sent to Washington to accomplish????
Both sides do this. Let's hate Bush Jr.; let's hate Obama; let's hate Romney; let's hate Hillary; and on and on and on it goes.
Someone at the IRS was way out-of-line and needs to be fired and possibly prosecuted if he/she did indeed break any laws, which I'd assume these people did. Focus on that so that maybe if the public was focused that way instead of here's 'a chance for us to finally get that Obama guy', which is how any of these issues gets spinned by the "brain trust" at Fox News and right-wing talk radio.
Apparently there isn't a smoking gun with the Bengazi thing. Someone made a decision, and I don't believe it was Hillary to not try to bring in troops. I listened online to "Face the Nation" from CBS and the reason given for not sending in the troops was the lack of time to safely prepare so as to not sustain a large loss of military lives in the process. Frankly that sounds like a load of crap until you stop and think about it for a minute. Remember how inept the Carter administration looked with the rescue attempt of the Iranian hostages failed?? America doesn't like failure and then arm-chair quarterbacks what should Carter and company done better, etc., etc. So maybe remembering that, rather than lose a ton of men needlessly, because they didn't have time to set up this situation for success, they made a command decision to not send in their men. If I were sitting in the hot seat and had to make that decision, I'm not sure which way I'd choose; neither are good choices. One way I might save those 4 folks, or not succeed and get a bunch of other Americans killed in the process. Or I do what they did and those 4 folks were killed. As I said, neither is a good choice. This isn't an adventure novel or movie; this is real life with real lives and that makes such a decision far tougher. Had this been a President Romney and staffs decision, would those of you who have been foaming at the mouth and wanting heads especially, Hillary's or Obama's, or both to roll, would you now be chanting let Romney's and [whomever he had as Hillary's replacement] heads to roll??? Probably not, and that's my point.
Apparently we don't have enough trained military folks nearby places of danger in those hostile nations. So let's learn from this, so that their deaths weren't in vain. If we insist on having an embassy in some bad place like Iran, etc., then we better have it fortified better and have enough military there to protect our folks there in that embassy, then this tragedy won't happen again, hopefully.
We've got so many real problems in this nation today, let's put our efforts towards fixing those and stop all this scandal and let's get Obama or let's get Romney or whomever the next GOP Prez is mentality.
Time to grow up and realize our guy lost, so now we've got to find ways to work with Obama, like it or not, or nothing gets done until after 2016. Can the nation withstand all that time of nothing getting done??? I'm not so sure it can. It is what it is.
Tue, May 14, 2013 10:45am
As for taxes... again the ridiculous notion raises its head about taxing everyone the same.. Oh brother... here we go again. Didn't anyone ever study economics in high school?
Let us go back to the very basics of taxation... The very wealthy can easily afford to pay 80% taxes on their income. No one else can. If we made taxation the same rate for all using this level, most of nation couldn't pay taxes. So let's flip that around. The very poor cannot pay taxes... They need that money to live. If we make everyone's rate the same, then the rich shall pay no taxes either.. That is the giant hole in anyone's argument that all should pay the same rate fairly... The rich can afford to pay unlimited taxes, even 100% on incomes because they have so much wealth, they can live off 0 income if need be. The 47% has no money and can ill afford to pay any tax, fully needing 100% of their income just to pay the minimum amount of bills required to stay out of bankruptcy...
A flat-tax rate cannot work... It is unfair to all but the rich, who will pay less under it... simply because the poor cannot rise up to the rates the rich are paying now, and all agree, even that is far too little... Just look at our deficit, caused by not taxing the wealthy the amount they've always been taxed before, as in back when we had surpluses!
What does work, is the system we have now... one not where you are taxed on your income.. but taxed on the income you have left over after meeting the most basic of expenses...
That is fair.
If you are living well, and have more income than you need to do well, you are required to give a little of that to the government to help it help you...
A very simple theory to understand. Any fair tax proponent, is simply arguing that poor should sacrifice some of the basic necessities of life, so the rich can be better off.
That is exactly what you argue for when you bring up a fair tax proposal and nothing you can say or do will change that. That is your motive, to cut taxes for the super-wealthy, and that is flat out UNCHRISTIAN and wrong.
Tue, May 14, 2013 11:21am
Mike, if you see I too called it that the IRS was pushing a political agenda. In the big picture that makes sense, doesn't it? As I said, the Tea Party makes an outrageous allegation so stupid only a knuckle-headed Republican could ever believe it, and the Obama team treats them as did the A-Team, by jumping out of a black souped-up van and whooping them up. "Mr T.! All your bling gold is giving away our position to that Predator circling around!' lol.
Upon poking around, I think I was wrong. The head of the IRS was appointed by George W. Bush and worked out its term. The person in charge of investigating tax-exempt organizations, was appointed by George W. Bush back in 2005 and was approved by a Republican Senate. So why would THEY target the Tea Party?
Could it be that it was his job? We all have worked for bosses at some point in our life... Imagine this conversation with a supervisor at some future point...
"What do you mean you didn't look at the Tea Party request more closely. It's a freakin' political Party?"
"Umm. I thought under the circumstances that it being in opposition to the current administration, that to do so would appear as an impropriety? And would cause trouble if I did?"
"What are you, stupid or crazy! For heavens sake! The whole concept of the Tea Party is NOT to pay taxes, and you are giving them a bye because of alleged impropriety? If someone said they were going to shoot you, would you give them a gun? If someone said they were going to stab you, would you let them sleep over in your house? Heaven help us all! What on earth were you thinking?"
So, of course the Tea Party should have their applications investigated thoroughly . It was the IRS's job. It is hard enough to investigate those who try to "sneak" through IRS regulations by deceit. To totally ignore someone who actually boasts they are going to do "tax civil disobedience", is malfeasance.... There is no other word for it...
There was no crime. If it were done, it was done by a George W. Bush appointee... I find that quite difficult to ever imagine happening.
And since the Republican presidential contenders are demanding Obama fire the brand new Democratic appointee, shows this is another rather clumsy effort to try to damage the president politically...
Why? Why are all these scandals hitting the press at the same time, which all when looked at, none are really scandals at all?
Because this president is SO DARNED GOOD, Republicans don't have a chance against him if playing on an even playing field... You can't look at anything Republicans have ever done, and truthfully say: ... yes that is good. You can't look at anything on the horizon, and say, yes, Republicans are better than the alternative. You can't do that because it is simply not true. Instead, all of America is looking at the Republican Party now imploding from within and is saying ... "Whew... we sure dodged a bullet with that Romney Dude.. our nation would be really messed-up if those swine had ever gotten into power..."
For he truth is... Republicans are swine. I mean that in a nice way of course. But they are incompetent, cowardly, ridiculous, evil, dangerous, destructive, horrible, immoral, unprincipled, and absolutely the wrong party deserving of receiving more power...
Republicans are on the skids. They can show nothing positive in these days since America gave them the vote of no-confidence in November. Today, they are blamed for Newtown. They are blamed for unemployment. They are blamed for Syria. They are blamed for the Boston Bombers. They are blamed for the explosion in West, Texas... They are blamed for each rape. They are blamed for every gun death in America today... I've seen the lists.
Oh, I'm not saying they are responsible. That would be a stretch. But what I'm saying is that in perception, they are getting blamed for every ill by every normal American trying to make a living in this world....
The Republicans almost have to fabricate a scandal-a-day just to come out of their front door in the morning without being laughed off the street.
That is why we seem to be having this rash of fake scandals. It has nothing to do with Democrats. IT has everything to do with the Republican Party of the United States of America. We are witnessing the death throes of the Republican Party. The convulsive twitches just before it dies...
Tue, May 14, 2013 12:55pm
The Republican Party was in dire straits until all these scandals started popping up and gaining media attention...now the Rs are actually starting to work together (we'll see how long that lasts) and the Ds are pushing blame on anyone not moving because they see 2014 approaching quickly.
And, kavips...answer me this, how is it FAIR (and Christian) for the Middle-Class to bear the burden of the uber-rich (who use accountants, loopholes and "special" rules to avoid taxes) and the "poor" (who pay no income taxes yet recieve the most benefits)? The Middle-Class gets thumped from both sides, and the Democrats tell us they are working for us, and we just need to soak the rich more (even though it doesn't work).
Tue, May 14, 2013 1:02pm
and kavips: You continue to query mrpizza on his medications... Have you stopped taking yours? Your posts are getting more and more vitriolic :(
Mike from Delaware
Tue, May 14, 2013 1:17pm
Kavips: Apparently the IRS is supposed to be checking to insure these groups aren't totally political and as was said on Face the Nation, I believe they said, about 85% of the American public believe the TEA party IS a political group, not a social help group [I too didn't know that - how do they qualify as a social help group?]. So the IRS probably was correct to question these groups to insure they were allowed the deduction or classification; the problem though is they seemed to ONLY focus on conservative-leaning groups. Funny no groups with the word Progressive were looked into.
Tue, May 14, 2013 2:00pm
Mike: Do you think Tea Partiers, Conservatives, or Jewish groups just may in the near future have trouble receiving fair treatment when it comes to medical care? The IRS is in charge of implementing/enforcing ObamaCare...and we are supposed to believe EQUAL treatment will be delivered? The current track record of the IRS does not bode well for anyone even tied to a group that does not support the D-party.
If you think as they think you are fine;however, if you express your First Amendment right it will be, "No HealthCare for You...next" (to borrow a Seinfeld-ish quote from a certain Soup seller)
Mike from Delaware
Tue, May 14, 2013 3:09pm
EarlGrey: You seem to be overlooking an important point, the person in charge of the IRS when this "profiling" started was a Bush appointee, not an Obama appointee. So I'm having a difficult time seeing the connection between Obama being the cause of this vs. Bush being the cause. What doesn't make sense is that the TEA-type folks are Bush-type folks, so why would they have targeted their own fellow Republicans is anyone's guess. Sort of shooting yourself in the foot - heh heh.
The next point: The IRS is in charge of collecting the so-called "tax" from those individuals who choose not to get any health insurance and businesses that don't provide health insurance for their employees. The IRS won't get to decide who gets care, and how much care they get, etc. There are other buearucrats for that.
EarlGrey, you do, though, raise an important question, and now that this issue of the IRS targeting conservative groups becomes an even bigger and more important issue. Will whoever in the Obama administration or the next administration- be they DEM or GOP - give better health-care treatment to those who are registered in their party and "stick it" to those who aren't? Is there an oversight vehicle in this Obamacare to insure THAT doesn't happen?
This would be a great question to get answered. Maybe Kavips, who seems to be able to ferret out stuff like this, would attempt to find out the truth and let us all know.
Tue, May 14, 2013 3:14pm
MikeFromDelaware: One cannot follow the teachings of Jesus and be a right-winger or tea partier. The two are completely contradictory.
And no, it's a really idiotic question to get answered. But what do you Bible-bashers care? You get sick, you pray. You tune in some faith-healer and put your hands on the TV and expect a miracle. Maybe you can even pray away prejudice and paranoia.
Tue, May 14, 2013 7:40pm
Billsmith. Your caricatures of Christians are way off the mark. It was as if we made fun of all Jews, including our state's chief exec, based only on the beliefs of the Hasidics.
The Christians you describe - and yes, like Hasidics, they are weird - are a splinter in number of 1/100th of one percent or perhaps about 30,000 people. Their excessiveness puts them on TV a lot.
They exist, we tolerate them, as Jews would the Hasidics, but they in no way define Mike or anyone else here.
Tue, May 14, 2013 7:57pm
kavips: The plural of "hasidic" is "hasidim."
Weird? Excessive? And people say I'm judgmental?
And Reform Jews don't "tolerate" Hasidim or members of other movements in Judaism. Toleration and intolerance are Christian concepts. Christianity is all about correct doctrine and conformity. And this need for conformity spills over into politics and most other areas of life. Look at the vitriol with which "social conservatives" represented here speak of those on other parts of political spectra.
At least Delaware achieved marriage equality without "good Christians" rioting or killing anybody. That, of course, if what "good Christians" did to the Mormons, who practiced an alternative view of marriage, in Nauvoo, IL.
In Christianity, probably the group most analogous to Hasidim is the Amish.
Wed, May 15, 2013 12:45pm
"What doesn't make sense is that the TEA-type folks are Bush-type folks, so why would they have targeted their own fellow Republicans is anyone's guess. Sort of shooting yourself in the foot - heh heh"
Exactly Mike, it doesn't make any sense...why were only Tea Party/Conservative/Jewish groups given extra IRS attention...but NO Progressives/Unions/Social Justice-types were touched? Because only the Tea Party conservatives and pro-Israel Jews were getting involved in politics and organizing groups legally to promote their political opinions.
And, you may want to research a little more how much interaction/influence there is going to be between HealthCare and the IRS.
Wed, May 15, 2013 12:52pm
"Because only the Tea Party Conservatives and Pro-Israel Jews were getting involved in politics and organizing groups legally to promote their political opinions."-Earl Grey
To head off those who are going to say the other side (the left) legally did the same thing (organize PACs)...you are right.
I was trying to say the TeaParty and others were all new to the game in 2010 and TeamObama needed them to be stopped quickly (before the 2012 elections) and many were.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 15, 2013 1:16pm
EarlGrey: So then I believe you are saying that as those TEA/conservative groups were new to the game in 2010, they of course would be given more scrutiny than those already established liberal groups, so the IRS was, in fact, doing what it should have been doing.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 15, 2013 2:06pm
Apparently some of the DEMS on the hill aren't convinced Obama didn't know about the IRS targeting TEA/conservative groups.
Mike from Delaware: Not only did Obama know, he ORDERED all this. The IRS employees would never have done this on their own. They had orders from left-wing headquarters.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, May 15, 2013 8:33pm
Mrpizza: We don't know that Obama ordered this, that is what Rangel is trying to determine, if I understand this correctly. If you've seen some news item that shows that Obama ordered this, post the link, because I'd sure like to see it and that would settle that issue for all of us here.
I believe we should give the Prez the benefit of the doubt until we know for sure that he either ordered it or knew all about it, etc, and not based on what Limbaugh or the gang at Fox News claims, but a credible news source. Just as I'd not want to base any accusation of Boehner or McConnell by what Randy Rhodes or the gang at MSNBC said. Both groups are so biased they lack any credibility.
Having said all that, I find it very interesting that a really big time Obama supporter, Rangel, IS asking those same questions of the Prez. So there may be more to this than Obama and company would want all of us to know. If it is true, then 2014 and 2016 could be very good years for the GOP assuming they don't do anything stupid like they did in 2012. So if I were a DEM I'd not worry too much about it. The GOP is there own worse enemy as 2012 proved, but still that could breathe a breath of life into a faltering GOP.
Thu, May 16, 2013 8:55am
"Both groups are so biased they lack any credibility."
PopeMikeFromDelaware: Meaning they don't hold the same views as you. And since you are infallible and in direct contact with god, your views are THE TRUTH.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 16, 2013 10:14am
Billsmith: No, meaning that Fox and right-wing talk radio believe the GOP to be correct 100% of the time and the DEMS to be wrong 100% of the time. MSNBC and left-wing talk radio believe the DEMS are correct 100% of the time and the GOP is wrong 100% of the time. Neither are correct as no party is correct all the time or wrong all the time, in my opinion, so to my ear/eye, that makes both too biased to be believed. If you choose to believe that either is correct 100% of the time, that's your business.
Thu, May 16, 2013 11:21am
PopeMikeFromDelaware: You are the one who seems to think agreement equals correctness. Me, I don't pay any attention to talk show hosts, nor do I have any respect for them. I'll leave them, and preachers and televangelists, to people like you and Pizza. In any case, you are no different since you claim your view of god and what side god is on is "correct" 100 per cent of the time.
Tell the truth: You want the death penalty for homosexuals because that's what your reading of scripture calls for!
Thu, May 16, 2013 1:00pm
And yet another thread has devolved to nothing meaningful.
Back to the original topic...I wonder if another reason why the IRS targeted TEA (taxed enough already) Party groups was for their own job preservation along with the other political reasons mentioned previously. The TEA Party strongly wants a flat tax...flat tax would prett much eliminate the IRS.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 16, 2013 1:18pm
EarlGrey: You make a good point. A flat tax would pretty much eliminate the IRS. I'm against the Flat Tax, because it benefits the wealthy [as they'd pay far less tax than they now pay] which is why folks like Steve Forbes pushed for this during his run for the Prez. A flat tax punishes the middle class and poor. It's not a good solution, UNLESS you have a graduated flat tax. So you create various levels of income and if you're within this income you pay this percentage, the higher the income the greater the percentage, but its flat, just more reasonable so that all do pay something, but the wealthy still pay a greater share.
I realize the TEA/GOP folks would never go for such a system which is why a flat tax is dead, because the Forbes version won't get passed DEMS as it would hurt poor and middleclass folks and reward the rich.
But getting back to your point EarlGrey, yes I could see the IRS not wanting to assist the TEA folks at all as if you guys are successful and did get a flat tax of some sort,[the Forbes plan or what I proposed] then those folks at the IRS are unemployed.
Thu, May 16, 2013 1:39pm
Mike: If the loopholes and "special exemptions" were removed I think the rich would actually end up putting more into the system.
Thu, May 16, 2013 1:41pm
...with a flat tax.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 16, 2013 3:24pm
EarlGrey: If that was how it would actually work, then I could be in favor of such a system, but I'd want those details spelled out in real detail [for you and I as the folks usually on the hook] to see BEFORE its voted on [none of this we'll read the bill AFTER we vote on it as was done with Obamacare].
That would be why the rich wouldn't want it, as it is now they are reaping the benefits of our system and not paying for all their gigantic salaries, benefits, perks, stock options, etc, etc. So be suspicious if all of a sudden the rich get excited about some Flat Tax Plan, grab your wallet.
Thu, May 16, 2013 7:46pm
The cover-up continues!
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.