[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting - and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.
+++++++++++++
In my experience, the rate of audit for a normal person is less than 1%.
But give money to a TEA party group, you have a 10% chance of being audited.
[/quote]
I am no fan of Obama and I don’t trust the IRS. But I’m going to play a little bit of Devil’s Advocate. Average rate of audit is less than 1%, but are there not certain groups (small business proprietors, landlords, etc.) who are audited at a higher rate regardless of political associations? And are those particular groups disproportionately present among Tea party group donors, or are they not?
I am inclined to believe the 10% rate reflects some political selection. But 10% vs. less than 1% is not necessarily a valid comparison. 10% vs. whatever the percent is for people with similar occupational and economic profiles as the Tea party donors would be a better comparison (if that is practical to do).
[/quote]
Even if that were the case, they were still lying about destroying the illegally obtained lists of donors.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting - and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.
+++++++++++++
In my experience, the rate of audit for a normal person is less than 1%.
But give money to a TEA party group, you have a 10% chance of being audited.
[/quote]
I am no fan of Obama and I don’t trust the IRS. But I’m going to play a little bit of Devil’s Advocate. Average rate of audit is less than 1%, but are there not certain groups (small business proprietors, landlords, etc.) who are audited at a higher rate regardless of political associations? And are those particular groups disproportionately present among Tea party group donors, or are they not?
I am inclined to believe the 10% rate reflects some political selection. But 10% vs. less than 1% is not necessarily a valid comparison. 10% vs. whatever the percent is for people with similar occupational and economic profiles as the Tea party donors would be a better comparison (if that is practical to do).
[/quote]
You would also have to couple that with the lack of approval of their 501(c)(3) applications. You would have to take the numbers of “Tea-Party” groups that were given extra burdens, slow-walked, or denied. Compared to a think almost zero liberal learning groups. This would further demonstrate the Obama administration using the IRS as a political weapon.
Unrelatedly, this is ridiculous and anyone responsible should be in prison.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
Ideally everyone they wrongfully chose to audit should get to kick them in the nuts hourly while they are in there.
I’ll never understand why people seem to want to hold people in power responsible for administering laws to a lower standard than the people they have power over.[/quote]
I like to wait for things like hard and substantial evidence of criminal conduct before I start calling for prison sentences. Call me old fashioned. Or American.
Undoredo made a great point about the 1 percent figure. It could be a numbingly misleading comparison–not that I would expect anything less from a rag founded by the 'ole messiah himself. But I digress. You may think you know enough to tell the story just like it is right now, but I don’t think you do. Perhaps you can direct the FBI in the right direction if I’m mistaken.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Bypassing Congress, refusing to enforce the law, an Attorney General who’s a convicted criminal, demagoguery - I’d say people are right to be concerned about the Obama administration.[/quote]
Whether you’re right or not–(bypassing congress is an long-standing Presidential tradition, for example, and you can take a look at the numbers)–“right to be concerned” and “justified in invoking Stalin” are two very different things. There is a difference between objecting, or getting angry, and shitting your pants in a histrionic tantrum. The latter is what one is doing when one invokes the name of someone like Stalin. It’s childish and ridiculous in the most literal sense of the term.
Unrelatedly, this is ridiculous and anyone responsible should be in prison.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
Ideally everyone they wrongfully chose to audit should get to kick them in the nuts hourly while they are in there.
I’ll never understand why people seem to want to hold people in power responsible for administering laws to a lower standard than the people they have power over.[/quote]
I like to wait for things like hard and substantial evidence of criminal conduct before I start calling for prison sentences. Call me old fashioned. Or American.
Undoredo made a great point about the 1 percent figure. It could be a numbingly misleading comparison–not that I would expect anything less from a rag founded by the 'ole messiah himself. But I digress. You may think you know enough to tell the story just like it is right now, but I don’t think you do. Perhaps you can direct the FBI in the right direction.
[/quote]
To play Devil’s Advocate, the 10 percent vs. 1 percent could be an invalid comparison because of differences in the economic/business profiles of the donors vs. the general population. But to play Devil’s Advocate rebuttal, it hardly seems likely that the average audit rate for a comparable group of people who were not Tea party group donors would be so high as 10%.
[quote]undoredo wrote:
But to play Devil’s Advocate rebuttal, it hardly seems likely that the average audit rate for a comparable group of people who were not Tea party group donors would be so high as 10%.
[/quote]
I agree: It does not seem likely. Which is why I said “may.” But my point is that it is best to wait for good information, don’t you think?
Unrelatedly, this is ridiculous and anyone responsible should be in prison.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
Ideally everyone they wrongfully chose to audit should get to kick them in the nuts hourly while they are in there.
I’ll never understand why people seem to want to hold people in power responsible for administering laws to a lower standard than the people they have power over.[/quote]
I like to wait for things like hard and substantial evidence of criminal conduct before I start calling for prison sentences. Call me old fashioned. Or American.
Undoredo made a great point about the 1 percent figure. It could be a numbingly misleading comparison–not that I would expect anything less from a rag founded by the 'ole messiah himself. But I digress. You may think you know enough to tell the story just like it is right now, but I don’t think you do. Perhaps you can direct the FBI in the right direction if I’m mistaken.[/quote]
I don’t need every single tidbit of information.
I don’t need every single piece of the puzzle to fit cozy and neatly, this is not Law and Order. It’s this very thinking of the world behaving like a game of Clue that had people like OJ and Casey Anthony get off.
Where there is smoke, there is fire, and when the head of the IRS pleads the 5th twice, it means she is hiding something incriminating.
From IRS documents from Judicial Watch:
May 10, 2013:
An email from former Cincinnati program manager Cindy Thomas excoriates Lerner for her comments blaming â??low-levelâ?? employees in its Cincinnati office for targeting tax-exempt organizations that had â??Tea Partyâ?? or â??Patriotsâ?? in their names during the 2012 election. Highlighting the words â??low-level workersâ?? in bold-face type each of the seven times she used it in short, pungent email, Thomas asked, â??How am I supposed to keep the low-level workers motivated when the public believes they are nothing more than low-level workers and now will have no respect for how they are working cases?â?? Lernerâ??s response nearly an hour later was a terse, â??I will be back shortly and give you a call.â??
The Judicial Watch FOIA requests came on the heels of an explosive May 14, 2013, Treasury Inspector General report revealing that the IRS had singled out groups with conservative-sounding terms such as â??patriotâ?? and â??Tea Partyâ?? in their titles when applying for tax-exempt status. The IG probe determined that â??Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to (e.g., lists of past and future donors).â?? According to the report, the illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and â??delayed processing of targeted groupsâ?? applicationsâ?? preparing for the 2012 presidential election.
I don’t need to see anymore, the court of Maximus has deemed her guilty like a mother fucker (slams gavel). The question is, do we throw her in the slammer ? Yes.
But the “wait and judge when we see the evidence” stance can’t be applied with this administration. I mean, committees will subpoena documents and they will just get ignored. Then these subpoenas can’t get enforced. Much of this evidence is documents/records/emails etc.
We saw that with the Bengahzi documents that recently came out. The government subpoenas were not honored, but thankfully Judicial Watch was able to obtain them.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But my point is that it is best to wait for good information, don’t you think?[/quote]
The important thing is to downplay Obama’s radicalism and attempt to portray him as a centrist or “just like every other President” no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Whilst this may cause the mask of impartiality to slip it is nonetheless necessary for supporters of the imperial presidency.
Recommended tactics:
Diversion - Hey everyone look over here! There’s something more important in this direction! Benghazi was two years ago for Pete’s sake!
Blame shifting - Bush started it. Bush was “just as bad.” Obama had to deal with Bush’s mess.
Obfuscation - Well it’s only sixteen trillion if you don’t discount the this and the that and numbers can be so misleading you know?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But my point is that it is best to wait for good information, don’t you think?[/quote]
The important thing is to downplay Obama’s radicalism and attempt to portray him as a centrist or “just like every other President” no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Whilst this may cause the mask of impartiality to slip it is nonetheless necessary for supporters of the imperial presidency.
Recommended tactics:
Diversion - Hey everyone look over here! There’s something more important in this direction! Benghazi was two years ago for Pete’s sake!
Blame shifting - Bush started it. Bush was “just as bad.” Obama had to deal with Bush’s mess.
Obfuscation - Well it’s only sixteen trillion if you don’t discount the this and the that and numbers can be so misleading you know?
[/quote]
None of this having anything to do with what I said, or anything I’ve said previously.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But my point is that it is best to wait for good information, don’t you think?[/quote]
The important thing is to downplay Obama’s radicalism and attempt to portray him as a centrist or “just like every other President” no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Whilst this may cause the mask of impartiality to slip it is nonetheless necessary for supporters of the imperial presidency.
Recommended tactics:
Diversion - Hey everyone look over here! There’s something more important in this direction! Benghazi was two years ago for Pete’s sake!
Blame shifting - Bush started it. Bush was “just as bad.” Obama had to deal with Bush’s mess.
Obfuscation - Well it’s only sixteen trillion if you don’t discount the this and the that and numbers can be so misleading you know?
[/quote]
None of this having anything to do with what I said, or anything I’ve said previously.[/quote]
You weren’t trying to downplay the Obama administration’s role in using the IRS to harm tea party groups? That’s how it appeared to me. It’s only ten times as many audits if you compare it to “this.” If you compare it to “that” it’s really not bad at all. However bad it might seem - and it isn’t necessarily bad at all mind you - we should all wait till more information comes out even though the IRS has shredded it all.
You weren’t trying to downplay the Obama administration’s role in using the IRS to harm tea party groups?
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to do anything. I was doing something, and this was agreeing with the correct point that the comparison between the general population and a politically active group of donors may not be appropriate. Statistical data can be pushed and pulled in this kind of way to unbelievably misleading effect. Not that that kind of thing matters to you when it comes to your patellar reflex. But it does matter to me. Because, you know, I don’t open wide and swallow when my ideological overlords push a narrative down my throat.
If you disagree with the point, you’re certainly not doing your argument any justice.
You weren’t trying to downplay the Obama administration’s role in using the IRS to harm tea party groups?
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to do anything. I was doing something, and this was agreeing with the correct point that the comparison between the general population and a politically active group of donors may not be appropriate. Statistical data can be pushed and pulled in this kind of way to unbelievably misleading effect. Not that that kind of thing matters to you when it comes to your patellar reflex. But it does matter to me. Because, you know, I don’t open wide and swallow when my ideological overlords push a narrative down my throat.
If you disagree with the point, you’re certainly not doing your argument any justice.[/quote]
They already admitted last year to special scrutiny of tea party group 501(c) applications. Lois Lerner refused to testify and pled the 5th. Now why would someone do that? Could it be to avoid self incrimination? Or is that too far fetched?
You weren’t trying to downplay the Obama administration’s role in using the IRS to harm tea party groups?
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to do anything. I was doing something, and this was agreeing with the correct point that the comparison between the general population and a politically active group of donors may not be appropriate. Statistical data can be pushed and pulled in this kind of way to unbelievably misleading effect. Not that that kind of thing matters to you when it comes to your patellar reflex. But it does matter to me. Because, you know, I don’t open wide and swallow when my ideological overlords push a narrative down my throat.
If you disagree with the point, you’re certainly not doing your argument any justice.[/quote]
They already admitted last year to special scrutiny of tea party group 501(c) applications. Lois Lerner refused to testify and pled the 5th. Now why would someone do that? Could it be to avoid self incrimination? Or is that too far fetched?[/quote]
It is not too far fetched. And you will find, from me, nothing but criticism of every evidenced aspect of this scandal and the abuse of power it represents.
It also doesn’t change the present point. Specifics are important.
Or do you disagree that the juxtaposition of the audit rates could turn out to be misleading? Or–and I find this likelier–do you not care about being mislead on the details?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You seem like a smart guy. Which is why I’m surprised you don’t see the similarities between Barack Obama and a composite villain of equal parts Genghis Khan, Cthulhu, and Nosferatu.
Unrelatedly, this is ridiculous and anyone responsible should lose his job.[/quote]
I certainly don’t sit around and sip on the Obama fan bus Kool-Aid, and I never voted for the guy either time, but I also don’t see his every fault or folly as being akin to the level of nefariousness that some here do, probably motivated by partisan political hatred more than anything.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or do you disagree that the juxtaposition of the audit rates could turn out to be misleading? Or–and I find this likelier–do you not care about being mislead on the details?[/quote]
A tenfold level of scrutiny can’t be explained away simply by the fact that they’re political donors.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or do you disagree that the juxtaposition of the audit rates could turn out to be misleading? Or–and I find this likelier–do you not care about being mislead on the details?[/quote]
A tenfold level of scrutiny can’t be explained away simply by the fact that they’re political donors.[/quote]
I am inclined to expect the same, but the thing about me is that I don’t say I know something until I do know it. Either way, the original point stands.
Relatedly, if you read something in the Washington Times, it is always good to ask, “In what way am I being misled here?”
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or do you disagree that the juxtaposition of the audit rates could turn out to be misleading? Or–and I find this likelier–do you not care about being mislead on the details?[/quote]
A tenfold level of scrutiny can’t be explained away simply by the fact that they’re political donors.[/quote]
I am inclined to expect the same, but the thing about me is that I don’t say I know something until I do know it. Either way, the original point stands.
Relatedly, if you read something in the Washington Times, it is always good to ask, “In what way am I being misled here?”
[/quote]
But not so The New York Times right? I seem to recall you heaping praise on that Bolshevik broadsheet. Relatedly, when did you stop beating your wife?