in welfare even applying for the 501c. Maybe we should have a hearing why these groups are trying to become exempt.

They might just gather en mass, revolt and throw themselves into the Boston Harbor.

And "hrow themselves into the Boston Harbor." this would be bad why exactly?

I mean, just how much Stupid can any one waterway handle?

casting sheens upon or emulsions beneath the navigable waters of the United States. It would have to be reported. Possibly a $10,000 per incident fine.

They are one whiny bunch. And most definitely are NOT social welfare anything.

Why?

would be an ecological disaster!

... one key distinguishing feature of a winger is they don't like to follow rules or laws. They all think they don't have to fool with those things, like the rabble does. You deal with them every day of your life, if you drive. They think they own those highways and byways, so get out of their way. So you can imagine how they froth at the mouth at the name "non-profit" org. They see it as "no-tax" org. "Non-profit," their ass. Churches do it don't they? And they get away with it. No one took their tax-exempt status away from them, and the wingers have been using them for nigh onto 40 yrs! It was a green light, Thinkingabout. So they did it.

The scandal is not all it's cracked up to be, though. Yes, the IRS and maybe Justice is going to have some splainin' to do, because they have been letting them get away with tax-exmpt status for decades. Starting with the church politics all those decades ago, under Reagan! I don't know how this is all going to shake out. Either they're going to weasel out of it some way and it will all be forgotten, OR, PO will do the right thing and explain to America what has been happening and tell the IRS & Holder to clean the mess up and collect the back taxes from every org who called themselves a non-profit, but weren't. They might let the churches go, as most of them are into social welfare, but just tell them to keep the message on the pulpit clean of politics from now on. But the ones like KKKarl Rove and the Koch brother types who have no interest in social welfare for anyone but themselves, make THEM pay up and tell them to file aps for 527 status, pronto.

I hope that made sense. I know of what I speak, as I had a hand in starting a couple 501c orgs. Politics is a great big NO-NO.

This is really a scam by the Koch's and there like... to fund any and all candidates for any political office in any locality(town, city, county), state (state offices up to the Governor), and Federal (up to the Presidential Candidates (remember Mitten's)), and what better way to distribute all of this money under the radar? 501(c)4 organizations, and being the hypocrites that they really are, get a tax-exempt status to help fund their political activities and fund their candidates for political office (right down to Dog Catcher). Slick right!

Funny how "anti-government" groups and people seem to do that often: Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, the list goes on and on.

need to be questioned about their intentions, not the other way around. But the D's in congress
let this shit go unanswered. Every Fucking Time.

Once in a blue moon the Dems refute this bullshit, but IMHO not on a regular basis.
We need 100 Dems to stand up and call this bullshit out, not one guy, So the whole
Media can see these assholes for who thy are.

He's my rep and has never failed to do as I wanted him to do. And the Democrats I vote for my area don't fail either. My Dems are not DINOs and their work is never reported in the media and they catch hell from the baggers infesting the area with plenty of Koch money.

McDermott rocks

say that sort of thing.

I think it's a habit that accompanies learned helplessness, a.k.a. copping out.

..... Dems speak out and make speeches on the floor against all kinds of GOP/Teabagger crap. But unless you watch C-Span 24/7, you are not gonna hear about it in the media.


Meanwhile, every time Bachmann or Ryan fart the national anthem, they are plastered all over media.

and less time worrying about the truth.

The truth is what the 6 people who own the MSM decide is the truth.

IRS singling out NAACP under Bush. Not news.

IRS singling out corporate-funded political organizations who apply for tax-exempt status, one of which succeeded in getting a recall election set up against a Colorado democrat?

BIG, huge news.

Another reason why I'm glad he's my Representative.

had to do was be quiet and their scam would have continued. They were all granted tax free status wrongfully. They're so used to playing professional victims that they threw a hissy fit and exposed their chicanery. The law clearly states "exclusively for social welfare", no exceptions for politics.
Rule number one: When in a hole, stop digging.

They changed the statute's wording from "exclusively for social welfare" to "mostly for social welfare." So 49% goes to political dirty shenanigans and the other 51% goes into the "social welfare" (paying the bills of) the crooks doing the shenanigans.

...."exclusively", and for some reason the IRS was struck by St Elmo's fire and themselves changed it to "predominantly." Unbeknownst to Congress. They just slipped "predominantly" in. Now, "predominantly" sounds like at least 75% or more to me. What think?

The IRS altered the wording themselves internally.

I would like to see how that happened and who changed it.

It was "interpreted" by the IRS honchos as mostly, but the law still stands.

It means you have to be able to prove that every cent was done for the avowed purpose of the organization, whatever they've deemed "social welfare" to be in a way that the law includes.

That's pretty hard to show in any human-run organization. The decorations at the awards banquet contributed to the "social welfare" of those served? Keeping the AC at 71 instead of 72, making for an extra $200 in cooling costs. How about the plant that's sitting in the window of the chairman's office?

It's asking for frivolous, harrassment suits to be filed the minute that reasonableness and good will vanish and your foes expect you to perfectly comply with a draconian interpretation. Since raeonableness and good will vanished, the draconian interpretation had to be relaxed and made less draconian. You can have the flexibility on either end. We pretty much used to have it on the "initiate hostilities" side. Now, as American society has become more and more mean spirited we have to have it on the enforcement side. Our betters have to start to decide when we're acting too childish.

Now, teabaggers, answer them, and try not to whine.

They love socialism...that's why they are so "publicly" against it.

... that's what I want to see. All the media has to do is go to their swanky offices and pick up one of their pretty little brochures. The Mission Statement will be located at the top. Really, I'm absolutely positive that we would laugh our asses off reading those, as none of them would match up to the real purpose of their tax-exempt non-profit "organizations."

The argument that they didn't file correctly as a political group and an misfiled as a social welfare group, is not relevant, nor is it seen as true to them or their buddies, the Libertarians.

Both consider taxes to be a tool of socialists and communists or wealth redistribution. When all is said and done, that is exactly what it is.

Americans have interpretations of this that relate to cooperation and unity. The Libertarians and Tea Party, along with some on the Left are tribalists who say it can only exists in small groups. They ignore the anti-democratic nature of many small groups who maintain a sense of unity and cooperation that would be enforced like religious cults.

Heavy taxation on inherited wealth was promoted by some Founders as a way to stifle the growth of aristocracy emerging and taking America backward. Taxation is a tool of government to prevent the rich concentrating wealth, corrupting democratic institutions with their influence. If inequality is great, the rich enslave the rest of the citizenry. No law will stop ownership, and with that comes compulsion.

And example would be to pay the government taxes to fund the necessities, education or housing in accordance with the wishes expressed by politically involved citizenry, those willing to run for office. Those would be meted under the idea that all are created equal and deserve the necessities. We can do that or settle for paying directly to a corporation which are by nature undemocratic hierarchies. Or we can do without it necessities and beg the rich through the much applauded private charity and churches that the Tea Party and Libertarians say should take care of the 'parasites,' just be sure to not do it too lavishly.

Both see taxes as immoral for that reason, and others.

The Libertarians are followers of Ayn Rand who says those with wealth should not subsidize the 'parasites' and the government is 'robbing' the worthy persons to increase their numbers. This is against the natural order in their view, which is just social darwinism. Any help to the poor is suicide by the 'Supermen' and thus evil for the world as they would make it be. So it must not be done, as the poor should be removed from the gene pool.

That assumes that innate ability and character produce wealth, not cronyism, theft, fraud and murder through warfare or other means. Here is a disclaimer:



More religion bound followers argue the Bible supports them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar

So we are not talking the same language as the Tea Party and the Libertarians are. Nothing said is going to change them.

Heavy taxation on inherited wealth was promoted by some Founders as a way to stifle the growth of aristocracy emerging and taking America backward. Taxation is a tool of government to prevent the rich concentrating wealth, corrupting democratic institutions with their influence. If inequality is great, the rich enslave the rest of the citizenry. No law will stop ownership, and with that comes compulsion.

Thanks. It has happened so many times.

billionaires who are funding these self-serving tax exempt groups to benefit only themselves while these same billionaires are allow to remain anonymous even through their goal is obviously to advance a republican corporate political agenda for their own monetary gain. helping no one but the elite themselves.....

Another completely rigged republican bullshit smokescreen, exploiting & misusing a good government idea through their slimy technicalities.....these are greedy disgusting power mad sick republican creatures.

real Democrats left anymore.

They are a fringe. A very vocal fringe, but a fringe nonetheless. And we shouldn't be running scared of them and capitulating to their demands.

are on the same side when it comes right down to it.

Much like the True Scotsman, few can pass muster.

I can't remember a time when Dems were left-liberal and unapologetic. Maybe before Reagan, but my teenage self doesn't remember too many Dem politicians with real spines, even in the 70s.

Sixties. Ever hear JFK's speech calling himself proud to be a liberal? Gene McCarthy and George McGovern made a good try, but the "adults" were in backlash against the "dirty hippies." Even my definitely liberal Mom was a little hesitant about about McGovern until the other choice was Nixon. Sadly, Bobby Kennedy could have changed a lot of "adult" minds.

The 1968 Democratic convention was a sad turning point, leading to eight years of Nixon (although I've reevaluated Nixon in a more positive way in comparison to today's Republicans). I've never been sure how much the protesters were thoughtlessly playing into Republican hands, and how much was something else going on.

began apologetic back-peddling, changing "liberal" to "progressive" (Frank Luntz worked miracles in semantics for Republicans). Harry Reid is a perfect example of wimping out. He needs to go. As a constituent of the late Jack Murtha, I was outraged when he was passed over for Steny Hoyer. Pelosi was a good House leader, but I suspect she felt Murtha would be too abrasive for the Republicans in a major position. This kind of thinking is a Democratic fault, long needing correction. (impeachment is not on the table,,,but Repubs will knock themselves out looking for "scandals."

insider-traded stock portfolio. Steny Hoyer just looks like a used car salesman.

I've been a liberal since LBJ was president, I'll always be a liberal and call Democratic politicians out when they act like Republicans.

who diss PO FOLKS' handouts while happily taking money to shit on our political system.

I HAVE to pay taxes but THEY don't b/c they're teabaggers.

"because it's bad for everyone else except us!(tea partiers)"

they're disguise covering up their gop reality is showing.

n/t

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, Bet the farm that it's most likely a duck.

Baffling, that.

Thank you GOP for exposing this scandal. If you had just left it alone, all these groups could continue with their political activities that help keep both sides in office. Where campaign money is funneled to/laundered in secret. Now we are starting to focus where we should. Doing away with these tax exempt political groups.

where are the starving children these teabagger non-profits are serving? They then change the subject.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Subsidize."

I'm a teacher. I spend money on buying stuff for the classroom. That's performing a service that the government has obligated itself to perform and doesn't.

I get a tax deduction for some of those expenses. It's not a subsidy. That would be more along the lines of a refundable tax credit. Instead, my non-payment of taxes on that income is the government not taxing me on money I'm spending doing the work of government.

And that's why social service organizations from the extreme left to the extreme right aren't taxed. They're bits of "we the people" doing what those particular bits think government should be doing--and that Congress has agreed is social welfare. It's a way for minorities of various types to fund services that they think the government should be involved in, not just those that the majority want to fund and manage. That can be a cactus and succulent society (the one I was in was tax exempt), even if it did also engage a bit in non-social service work to keep itself funded and afloat and advance the interests of its members. It can be the church I was in, whether it "taught" or raised money to help the poor, or even the community orchestra I was in. None were branches of government. It could be the NAACP or NOW or Greenpeace or Harvard. All had people who thought those things were dandy ideas, with the IRS concurring that they were licit ways of promoting social welfare (once there was such a thing as the IRS and income tax, that is). Heck, I was involved with an unincorporated non-profit. It was doing "social service" work before the government started taxing such organizations. It didn't get a subsidy then. Doesn't get a subsidy now. It merely gets exempted from taxation. The difference may be mathematically equivalent, but there's a world of difference in the philosophy behind it.

It's only a subsidy if you think that "we the people" should only find exrpession through a monopolistic government that's run by a majority and that any social work activity of the people is an extension of the government. The government is how "we the people" do a lot of things and is to be an expression of the people, not the other way around.

I have been saying this same thing since I first heard about the "scandal". Personally, I have no problem with the targeting at all, simply because they should not be set up as "social welfare" organizations. I have never seen one organization with "tea party" or "patriot" names set up as true social welfare groups....so this was completely acceptable and appropriate.

I set up a Democratic group with the IRS, and I set it up as a "political action" organization....because that is what it was. They should be ashamed of themselves for trying to skirt the law, and more ashamed for crying when they were called on it.

That's the rep I voted for right there! Glad to see him asking these questions.

...since this IRS practice came to light. Over and over. “None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers would subsidize your work. We are talking about a tax break.” Beautiful. Why were they asking for a tax break? Why were they asking for a tax break? Why were they asking for a tax break?

and he really fucked up on that one.