HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » T.E.A. Party = Taxed Enou...

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:20 AM

 

T.E.A. Party = Taxed Enough Already. Doesn't it make sense that the IRS should look into them?

46 replies, 3526 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply T.E.A. Party = Taxed Enough Already. Doesn't it make sense that the IRS should look into them? (Original post)
grahamhgreen May 2013 OP
Honeycombe8 May 2013 #1
DJ13 May 2013 #3
jmowreader May 2013 #9
lame54 May 2013 #39
jmowreader May 2013 #40
B Calm May 2013 #44
Honeycombe8 May 2013 #21
grahamhgreen May 2013 #4
Honeycombe8 May 2013 #22
grahamhgreen May 2013 #23
Honeycombe8 May 2013 #32
markpkessinger May 2013 #25
dkf May 2013 #2
patrice May 2013 #5
giftedgirl77 May 2013 #6
Skittles May 2013 #10
tblue May 2013 #17
Skittles May 2013 #34
cherokeeprogressive May 2013 #7
Skittles May 2013 #11
Gravitycollapse May 2013 #13
grahamhgreen May 2013 #24
codemoguy May 2013 #31
treestar May 2013 #41
Dragonfli May 2013 #8
KoKo May 2013 #36
TheKentuckian May 2013 #12
CTyankee May 2013 #29
Gravitycollapse May 2013 #14
delrem May 2013 #15
ZombieHorde May 2013 #16
Laelth May 2013 #28
uponit7771 May 2013 #30
SunSeeker May 2013 #18
jamiea99 May 2013 #19
corkhead May 2013 #20
clarice May 2013 #26
grahamhgreen May 2013 #33
clarice May 2013 #38
Laelth May 2013 #27
KoKo May 2013 #35
CJCRANE May 2013 #37
B Calm May 2013 #42
grahamhgreen May 2013 #43
Savannahmann May 2013 #45
badtoworse May 2013 #46

Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:21 AM

1. It's against the law, apparently, to target a particular group of organizations

because of party affiliation. They didn't all have tea in their titles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #1)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:26 AM

3. But the TP'ers swear they arent Republicans

They seem to want it both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #3)

Fri May 17, 2013, 01:44 AM

9. They're not Republicans

Most teabaggers believe the Republican Party is too liberal. They only run candidates under the Republican banner because they know a third-party candidate would split the RW vote and put the Democrat in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #9)

Mon May 20, 2013, 11:50 AM

39. If you are hired as a repug...

you are a repug

Ron Paul is a good example

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lame54 (Reply #39)

Tue May 21, 2013, 04:18 AM

40. I'm thinking more of the rank-and-file than their elected officials

I have spoken to more than my share of the local teabaggers, as I volunteer at the Democratic Party's booth at the fair every year. Calling one of them a Republican is the easiest possible way to piss one off, and we specifically warn our volunteers, "do NOT, whatever you do, call anyone a Republican."

They will tell you flat out, "the Republican Party does not represent me." And that's because it's WAAAAAY too liberal for their tastes.

Quick example: one of the teabaggers in Benewah County is running for the school board. Her platform is very simple: end teacher pensions because it's not fair that the taxpayers are giving teachers lifetime pensions, get rid of kindergarten because its effects don't last past the fourth grade, and change the school week to four days of classroom instruction and a shitload of homework to do over the weekend. That won't fly no matter how she wants it to because the Idaho State Department of Education requires a minimum of 180 classroom days per year, but that's the kind of shit they want to implement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #40)

Wed May 22, 2013, 05:52 AM

44. No one wants to be called a republican,

 

they'll vote for one or two tea baggers and the majority of candidates they vote for have the magic R after their name. So call them republicans!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #3)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:04 AM

21. Okay, you're splitting hairs. Let's use "non-Democrats" or "non-liberals." It's political. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #1)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:33 AM

4. Seems reasonable to look for tax cheats in these organizations.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #4)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:05 AM

22. No more than in progressive organizations.

I think those orgs are sheisters, but really, the IRS isn't supposed to target right-leaning orgs. There was a way to target those orgs w/o zeroing in on their political stances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #22)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:10 PM

23. Well, if you are looking for criminals, as is the IRS's job. AND their criminality is defined by

 

their sheltering funds illegally, does it not make sense to look into organizations who stated purpose is to not pay taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #23)

Fri May 17, 2013, 07:07 PM

32. What makes you think it was every one of those orgs' stated purpose?

But I get your point. Still, I think it's illegal to focus on one political party, for whatever reason.

But no matter what, this is a PR nightmare, and no explanation will help, now. The damage has been done with the trifecta "scandals." Dems too slow, even now, to scare away the rightwingnut talking points. People don't watch the same news story day after day. They have heard the initial stories, and that's all they will know about those three "scandals."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #4)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:33 PM

25. Advocating politically for lower taxes cannot, and should not, be assumed . . .

. . . to be in any way necessarily indicative of likely tax evasion. To do so would have a chilling effect on political discourse. No matter how much we may disagree with Tea Party groups and the positions they hold, this is simply wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:22 AM

2. Wasn't it Obama who was against going back to Bush rates for 98% of the public?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:34 AM

5. Well, when you apply for tax breaks in order to finance your efforts to get tax breaks, you'd think

that would be a matter of interest to those who you want tax breaks from and who represent those who will be paying your way for you if you get a tax-exempt status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:40 AM

6. can't target because of affiliation but...

 

they have to prove they aren't a politically motivated machine. I could see the Tea Party getting scrutinized considering that is the party affiliation of the new nutbags.

Once again this goes back to the whole those who scream the loudest get heard. While there may have been targeting or "labeling" I'm trying to figure out when a gov entity has ever ran smoothly or gone quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to giftedgirl77 (Reply #6)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:09 AM

10. "prove they aren't politically motivated"

THEY'RE JUST A SUBSET OF REPUBLICANS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #10)

Fri May 17, 2013, 03:23 AM

17. They sure as hell are REPUBLICANS

The Tea Party is 100% political and 100% anti-Democrats, even if they can't stomach the tiny sliver of 'liberalism' they find in the Republican party. They only claim to be non-partisan 'community' orgs to buy themselves some mileage and tax-exempt status. The IRS saw through them, which wasn't hard to do, and treated them like the scheming meanies they are. Too bad the IRS didn't stick to its guns and explain the justification for the additional scrutiny. That would have been a beautiful thing to see. But no. The IRS had to apologize--to the Tea Party! The screaming, bullying, spitting, hating, racist, assault-weapon-toting, blissfully ignorant, can't-even-spell-a-sign-right Tea Party.

IRS: "We are so sorry, Tea Party. Here, we'll kick ourselves in the butt if you'll just please let this drop ASAP. Mea culpa. We suck. We'll target only liberal groups next time, okay? Then will you stop hurting us, please?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #17)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:08 PM

34. they remind me of gun humpers (lots of intersecting going on, for sure)

they simply cannot be honest about what they really are - if they're truthful, the masses would see them for what they are - truly revolting cowards and bullies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:43 AM

7. I don't want to live in a world where one comes under government suspicion for words they SAY.

 

And fuck the "well they do it too!" crap. I got over that stupid shit before I was a teenager. My Pop used aversion therapy if you know what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #7)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:10 AM

11. ? you don't think teabaggers are political?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #7)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:27 AM

13. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #7)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:14 PM

24. It's not just what they say, they are actively trying to not pay their taxes. If these groups

 

funded by individuals and corporations that have illegally evaded taxes in the past, it is only natural to look into them, it seems to me....?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #24)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:18 PM

31. what does 'they are actively trying to not pay their taxes' mean? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #7)

Tue May 21, 2013, 06:57 AM

41. "coming under suspicion" is not a good term where they are

applying for a benefit. They aren't being charged with a crime. It's to decide whether they can be a tax exempt organization or not.

People do all they can to avoid taxes within the confines of the law.

Actually what no one mentions is how, if you are trying to be a social welfare organization, you'd be dumb enough to put Tea Party labels on your organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:59 AM

8. Yes it does, sometimes it's simple, a cigar is just a cigar and a tax evader is just a tax evader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #8)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:22 PM

36. The simplest Answer is Often the Best! "If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck..It's a Duck!

Common Sense from the "Old School."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:18 AM

12. Sounds akin to Joe McCarthy's logic to me. Count me out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #12)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:48 PM

29. It's a different situation. The problem here is how do you define a "social welfare"

organization for purposes of a 501(c)(4) tax status? How much of what they do is social welfare and how much political action on behalf of a candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:30 AM

14. The "logic" in the OP is dangerous, unethical and completely unnecessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 02:44 AM

15. No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 03:21 AM

16. The IRS was being unethical, in my opinion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #16)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:44 PM

28. Vomit. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #16)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:49 PM

30. For?! tia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 03:28 AM

18. Yes, if they're claiming to be a social welfare organization...

and want tax exempt status. They don't even hide the fact that they are a political party. Their name contains the word "party." They ran Tea Party candidates.

The scandal is that they were granted tax exempt status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #18)

Fri May 17, 2013, 05:03 AM

19. bingo

I think that is why there is so much outrage, and much quickly manufactured - to deflect attention from the fact that none of these groups should be tax exempt.

It goes without saying the same should be true of similar groups on the left. The press keeps talking about how there are so many on both sides and perhaps there are, but none of the partisan activist groups to which I've donated have been tax exempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 06:31 AM

20. Only if they look at an equal number of dirty librul groups, even if there are only 1/10th as many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:41 PM

26. It's NEVER ok, under ANY circumstances to target ANY group. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to clarice (Reply #26)

Fri May 17, 2013, 07:34 PM

33. What about the mafia? Or any group that is stating an intention to break the law.

 

What if their stated purpose is income tax evasion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #33)

Mon May 20, 2013, 11:43 AM

38. I would agree on issues of National Security. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 12:43 PM

27. It does, to me.

Even if it were merely revenge for the Repukelican witch-hunt against Acorn, I would support it. Sadly, it wasn't nearly so heinous. In fact, the only group denied 501(c)(4) status was a progressive group.

Pathetic that the left gets burned politically when the only group actually injured was a leftist group.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:20 PM

35. Sure Does to Me! Can't imagine why this shouldn't be a HUGE Dem Issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri May 17, 2013, 08:30 PM

37. Well, maybe it's time to start up the "Coffee Party" network.

It seems like political organizations which are named after beverages and support likeminded candidates are tax exempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Tue May 21, 2013, 07:12 AM

42. It's the job of the IRS

 

to look into tax cheats. But, when republicans control congress they have the power to make it look like it's some kind of scandal against President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #42)

Tue May 21, 2013, 08:44 PM

43. Thank you. IMHO, they are groups organized of, by, and for, tax cheats!!!!!!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed May 22, 2013, 06:23 AM

45. With Liberty, and Justice for all.

 

Those words from the Pledge of Allegiance are the statement of principle that our nation was founded upon. With Liberty, and justice, for all. It took us a long time to even begin to live up to those words. Even after the Civil War, we did not treat our citizens equally. Even today, we struggle to live up to the principle those words embody.

Today, we look back at periods in our nations history, and we feel shame that the country could be so prejudiced, so closed minded. We celebrate the ending of those dark days. The humiliation of McCarthy, the ending of the House Un-american witch hunts. The Civil Rights movements. Today, we battle for equal rights for Same Sex Marriage. We push for Hate Crimes legislation to make sure that our citizens are treated equally, and to try and end the hate.

Our Government targeted people before based upon beliefs. McCarthyism is one of the darker days of our nations history. When people were blacklisted because someone else thought they might be a communist. Many Liberals were targeted, and if they dared refuse to name others, they were put on the list to make an example for others. Now, our political opponents are being targeted, and what do we do? We say it is a good thing, they deserve to be targeted.

I question that, obviously. First, The Tea party was a short lived phenomenon. It was never going to go mainstream. But by doing this, you give them a few more years of relevance. Worse, you bring into question the professionalism and judgment of the IRS. The same IRS that is going to be administering a lot of the ACA that goes into effect next year. With this cloud hanging over the IRS, when the judgment is made that someone didn't select enough coverage for their employees to avoid the penalty, then what is going to happen? A lawsuit, where the cheapskate owner of a business claims that he is targeted because he supports this political group or that ideology. The jury, remembering this targeting of the Tea Party will be sympathetic, and that is all it takes to tilt the scales to your favor in a lawsuit.

Finally, the image of the Tea Party as victims of the Government they protest is one we definitely don't want to take hold. Think of it this way. The Tea Party says that the Government is too big, too out of control, and takes too much of our money. The Government responds by targeting them with outrageous and improper demands for information. The average citizen who didn't care a whit about the Tea Party hears that, and even if they don't think it consciously, feels deep within themselves that the Government has just proved the case that the Tea Party is making. The average person out there thinks that the Government just proved the arguments the Tea Party was making. The Tea Party couldn't have written a script like that for Hollywood, because nobody would have believed it. Then the Government did it, for real. Now, everyone not only believes it, but wonders what the Government was afraid of if they worked so hard to shut those nuts up. The Government made the asinine claims of the Tea Party true all thanks to the stupidity of a handful of people in the IRS.

The Government pushed more people into the arms of the Tea Party, and far too many of us think that is OK, because we think they deserved it. Principles matter folks, and it's past time we started living up to some of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Wed May 22, 2013, 07:02 AM

46. No. What you are saying is that IRS harassment based on an opinion about taxes is OK

 

I strongly disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread