IRS

How the IRS Targeted Tea Party Groups for Abuse

The government agency apologizes, says "mistakes were made."

|

Did the Internal Revenue Service politically target conservative organizations when "front line" IRS employees stalled applications for tax-exempt status?

Absolutely not, said Lois Lerner, director of the IRS' exempt organizations unit. There was no political motivation at all.

Still, Lerner, during a press conference Friday afternoon, issued an IRS mea culpa for employees who inappropriately flagged organizations with the descriptors, "tea party" or "patriot," for further review.

"We had a shortcut in the process. It wasn't appropriate.  We learned about it and we fixed it," Lerner answered emphatically Wisconsin Reporter's question whether the delays were politically motivated.

But several conservative organizations cried foul during, and many Tea Party organizations filing for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status said the IRS peppered them with excessive questions to prove they were eligible for the exemption.

Lerner confirmed that employees at a Cincinnati IRS office in 2012 flagged 300 applications for tax-exempt status, and a quarter of those were from the conservative groups. When asked for an exact number, and whether it was safe to assume that 75 applicants were Tea Party or patriot groups, Lerner said, "I'm not good at math."

"But you're with the IRS," a reporter shot back.

"I'm a lawyer," Lerner responded.

Apparently, there were no liberal-sounding organizations flagged.

A 501(c)(4) is designated for the promotion of social welfare and cannot include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

"However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f)," according to the IRS.

Lerner claimed the problem was that low-level IRS agents saw a higher number of incomplete or questionable applications come in from "tea party" and "patriot" organizations — questions about the groups' political involvement. So, the employees began putting the "tea party" and "patriot" marked applications in a "bucket."

Earlier, the IRS released an apology — kind of.  It said between 2010 and 2012, the agency saw the number of applications for 501(c)(4) status double.

"As a result, local career employees in Cincinnati sought to centralize work and assign cases to designated employees in an effort to promote consistency and quality. This approach has worked in other areas.

"However, the IRS recognizes we should have done a better job of handling the influx of advocacy applications. While centralizing cases for consistency made sense, the way we initially centralized them did not. Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale."

Conservative groups call bull.

Tom Zawistowski, executive director of the Portage County TEA Party in Ohio and past president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, said in a statement that the organization will accept Lerner's apology because "what the IRS did was wrong and we proved it was wrong."

"However, we cannot accept her statement that this attack on our organizations and our liberty was orchestrated by low-level IRS employees in the Cincinnati office. We have proof that the same questions were being asked of groups from Virginia to Hawaii. We have further proof that agents admitted that they were being told by 'higher ups' not to process applications from "TEA Party Groups."

Members of Congress began asking questions of the IRS last year. In Friday's press conference, Lerner said administrators did not know the extent of the problem at the time. Asked why the IRS hasn't issued an apology sooner, Lerner said the IRS was moving to correct the situation.

Asked by Wisconsin Reporter whether any Wisconsin conservative organizations were flagged, Lerner said she could not say.

It appears the Rock River Patriots were.

Marv Munyon, secretary/treasurer for the organization, told Watchdog.org he applied for 501(c)(4) for the group in April 2012. The organization has yet to be approved, although the IRS cashed the Rock River Patriots' application fee of $400 on May 2, 2012, according to Munyon.

He said all he's received for his trouble is the "runaround," that he was sent from one agent to the next, over and over again.

"Finally, a lady told me, 'Your application has been received but it hasn't been referred to anyone to look at yet.' I said, 'What does that mean?' She said, 'It hasn't been put into process at all yet,'" he said.

He said he received a letter on Jan. 29, 2013, informing him that, "the initial screening of the application of your case should be assigned to an exempt organizations specialist for technical review. We assign applications to specialists in the order that we receive them."

The letter further states, "Unfortunately, we are experiencing delays in working applications that require further development."

Although he has filed the organization's tax forms, noting the tax-exempt application was pending, Munyon said he still is awaiting word from the IRS.

"I just got a bunch of static out of the IRS," he said.

Lerner declined to say whether agents had been disciplined for flagging the applications from conservative groups. She said 130 of the 300 applications have been approved, 25 were withdrawn, and the rest still are in process. None has been rejected, Lerner said.

"It is important to recognize that all centralized applications received the same, even-handed treatment, and the majority of cases centralized were not based on a specific name. In addition, new procedures also were implemented last year to ensure that these mistakes won't be made in the future. The IRS also stresses that our employees — all career civil servants — will continue to be guided by tax law and not partisan issues," the IRS said in its statement.

This article originally appeared at Watchdog.org.

NEXT: Rand Paul Takes Opening Election 2016 Shot Against Hillary Clinton

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Presuming a government needs revenue to fund the extremely limited function of defending the rights of its citizens, wouldn’t it make more sense to have each citizen pay an equal amount with NO exemptions, thus eliminating the need for the IRS to begin with?

    Just a thought.

    1. No. If we did that what could our masters use for incentives for proper behavior?

      1. I was thinking about this the other day. Tell me what you think of this premise:

        All the partisan parts of politics stem from the legislature’s ability to make law that does not apply to all entities equally. There only source of power comes from the fact that they are allowed to choose winners and losers and thereby, buy votes.

        How would this work for limiting government? A constitutional amendment stating:

        Congress shall make no law favoring one entity over another.

        IOW, the laws they pass must apply to everyone, no exemptions.

        I’m still toying with it. Spears welcome.

        1. *Their

        2. Achieving that goal is going to take a very strong amendment full of explication that makes it explicitly clear what is meant. The courts would love to eviscerate any such amendment any way they can. For starters, they would say something like “It does apply to all entities equally. If they want the exemption they are free to stick sausages up their noses like the law calls for…”

        3. Achieving that goal is going to take a very strong amendment full of explication that makes it explicitly clear what is meant. The courts would love to eviscerate any such amendment any way they can. For starters, they would say something like “It does apply to all entities equally. If they want the exemption they are free to stick sausages up their noses like the law calls for…”

        4. Congress shall make no law favoring one entity over another.

          “Both rich people and homeless people are not allowed to sleep under bridges”. That *applies* to everybody, but limits only the homeless.

          1. On the flip side:

            “Yachts shall be taxed at 50%.”

            Thus only shipbuilders are hurt, but it does apply to ALL who purchase a yacht.

            1. Didn’t this actually happen?

              I mean, that America’s luxury shipbuilders have been essentially eliminated, and many jobs lost, because of some draconian luxury tax.

            2. We could bring up an endless stream of examples like that.

              Also, different people have a different opinion of what is fair.

              Francisco seems to think that it is fair if somebody who makes 10k a year and an income millionaire both have to pay 15k in taxes. A socialist idiot might think that it is fair if the government leaves both of them just 10k.

              1. A socialist idiot might think that it is fair if the government leaves both of them just 10k.

                No, but it would be completely fair for every person to pay an equal amount for the same government services.

                If government was doing only those things it should be doing, I figure it would be spending about $1T/year. Divide that by 310M and you come to $3225 per person per year. That is COMPLETELY doable. And COMPLETELY fair.

                1. If government was doing only those things it should be doing, I figure it would be spending about $1T/year.

                  You are FAR more generous than I.

                2. You might get US Federal government expenses down to one trillion, but you also need to take into account state and local government spending. And you need to take into account that the current US national debt already is 16T, and at some point you might have to pay 5-6% interest on that.

                  Even taking the 1 trillion number, as you divided by 310M, a 1 year old then has to pay $3225 per year. That does not look doable. It certainly does not look fair to me, as the 1 year old had no capability to create income.

                  1. Is your one year old protected by the military? Will the courts enforce your one year old’s rights? Will the FBI attempt track down your one year old if kidnapped? How is that not “fair”?

                    I’ll give you that the rules would have changed from the time you made your decision to have the child and changing the rules of the game midstream may not be considered “fair”, so you could phase it in in such a way (over time) that everyone sees it coming and can make decisions accordingly. After that point, if you cannot afford to pay the screaming poop machine’s share, don’t place teh peepee in teh vayjay. Why should someone else pay for your kids?

                    You see, the beauty of a flat fee tax, is not only its fairness, but that increasing it hurts the poor the most. That fact, in and of itself, has the effect of constraining the size of government. Brings a tear to your eye, don’t it?

                3. How would we attack countries that haven’t attacked us with a budget that small?

            3. “Yachts shall be taxed at 50%.”

              I would think that immediately unconstitutional.

              1. Unconstitutional under your dream amendment or under the current regime? Because I don’t see a way out of the blanket tax power granted to Congress.

                I’ve come to believe that the Constitution really was written for people of that time. Not in the sense that we can’t understand it today a la Klein, but in the sense that that generation knew what they wanted (mostly limited government) and wrote the rules with themselves in mind. They didn’t seem to foresee that later generations would require tighter and stronger fences. They wrote rules for a boxing match but it became a streetfight.

                1. Under the dream amendment obviously.

                  They’d be, almost immediately stipped of almost all their power, as it would mean their constituency gets only what other constituencies get.

        5. We already have the equal protection clause. They ignore it, just like the rest of the constitution.

          -jcr

          1. I know you are just being cynical jcr, everyone here is, and for good reason.

            My one complaint about the commentariat is we spend all our energy bitching about what is wrong without thinking about how we’d fix it, if given such an opportunity. (Realizing full well the likeliness of such an event occurring.)

            It’s been my experience that people listen to those with a plan more so than those who simply bitch. At the very least you force your opponents to discredit it. They may still be full of shit, but at least you force them to think about it.

            (No offense to you personally jcr, I assume you were just being ironical.)

            1. Well, if it helps in your calculations, I don’t listen to either.

              Because “having a plan” is just bitching too.

    2. If you think Frank`s story is unbelievable,, last pay-cheque my girl friends mom got a cheque for $5854 sitting there in their apartment and they’re best friend’s step-mother`s neighbour did this for 8-months and got paid over $5854 in there spare time on-line. use the information on this site… http://WWW.DAZ7.COM

      1. the air ….

    3. Nolan. I just agree… Leslie`s bl0g is really cool, on monday I bought a great new Lotus Esprit after having earned $4034 this-last/4 weeks and in excess of $10k last month. this is definitely my favourite work Ive ever done. I started this 10-months ago and practically straight away startad bringin home over $81, per-hour. I work through this link, http://www.fox86.com

    4. my neighbor’s mom makes $66 an hour on the internet. She has been without work for 5 months but last month her income was $16989 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site grand4.com
      (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  2. The various Tea Party entities and tea partiers themselves have declared war on taxation. Is it so wrong for the taxers to respond in kind? And isn’t it logical for the IRS in any case to view as suspicious anyone who tries to take the government’s money through tax loopholes such as 501(c)(4)?

    1. You joke, but Fark agrees. This further proves that modern progs cannot be parodied.

      The Tea Party’s expressed philosophy is that all taxation is bad and should be avoided by any means necessary.
      For what possible reason, other than sneaky Obama-spiracy, might the IRS be particularly suspicious of them? Must be Obama. Obviously.

      So if you attend a pot legalization rally, does that mean it’s okay for the DEA to search your house on the assumption that only someone with weed would attend that rally?

      1. Rudimentary logic is beyond them. Trying to make sense of their despotism-affirming abomination of an ideology will only give you heartache.

      2. Fark – Ultimate repository of all things stupid (or is that Reddit, or balloonjuice?)

        1. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

          1. Apart from the Democratic Underground. That’s the place where humanity and dreams come to die.

            1. I still remember the Democratic Underground comment that claimed all debt and deficits are irrelevant because we can print more money!

              They never ask why, if that’s true, we need to have taxes. If we can just print more money and deficits will do no harm, then our tax rates should be 0%, correct?

              1. The sad thing is that they’re half right. We’re perhaps the one country in the world that can say that about its currency. As long as the world loves the USD, they’ll probably love our bonds. When the rest of the world loses confidence, it will all turn to shit. Keeping taxes is part of sustaining the illusion; the difference between a debtor with a bad job and one with no job perhaps.

                I’ve come to the conclusion that true collapse is far away because the US’s inertia is just that strong.

                1. As long as the world loves the USD, they’ll probably love our bonds.

                  Yes, but if we run massive deficits, people will start dropping the USD as their reserve currency out of fear that we might start having inflation.

                  People have already started to move off of the dollar as a reserve compared to 6-7 years ago. In 2005, 66.4% of countries had the U.S. dollar as a reserve, today it’s 61%. That’s not a huge drop, and we’ve been a lower percentage of reserves before (In 1995 we were only 59% of global reserves) but a lot of countries seem to be considering moving off the US dollar as their only reserve.

                  Some countries are even considering using local currencies as part of their reserves, such as South American countries using the Chilean Peso. If people move off the dollar as a global reserve, we’ll be in a lot of trouble.

                  1. That’s the danger. But until that happens at a large enough scale to matter, the progs are right that we can borrow all we want. It will be like flipping a light switch; we will see the built-up consequences of their policies all at once but not until then.

                    1. the progs are right that we can borrow all we want

                      Future generations will be stuck with the tab anyway, so party on!

                2. I’ve come to the conclusion that true collapse is far away because the US’s inertia is just that strong.

                  Australia recently put legislation in place that allow companies to bypass USD conversion in trade. It’s not that far off.

                  1. That’s actually not something I understand, coming from the US. Why would you involve a middleman in your transaction if you didn’t have to?

                  2. And many countries have created trade agreements among themselves to use a local currency as their reserve. The Africans are starting to use China’s Yuan as a reserve because of the amount of Chinese direct investment. China also has bilateral agreements with Japan and Russia to use their own currencies in trade.

                  3. What was it that was/is requiring Australian companies to use the USD for trade other than the other party in the transaction? Did the Australian government require the USD to be used in the past?

                3. As long as the world loves the USD, they’ll probably love our bonds. When the rest of the world loses confidence, it will all turn to shit. Keeping taxes is part of sustaining the illusion; the difference between a debtor with a bad job and one with no job perhaps.

                  I’ve come to the conclusion that true collapse is far away because the US’s inertia is just that strong.

                  I agree, although I think being the military hegemon of the world is a huge factor.

                  Which leads me to the conclusion that we might as well fund the federal government exclusively through seigniorage beca

                  1. a) taxes are inherently tyrannical and

                    b) this ride is going to end when the dollar ceases being the world’s reserve currency and not before. We might as well speed that inevitablity up as much as possible.

              2. I remember someone here noting that comment. I also remember distinctly how my head literally, physically pounded for several minutes in response to the sheer retardation and stupidity of that claim and the person who wrote it.

                It’s the sort of thing that makes me think that if there is a God, he’s got a really bad sense of humor.

              3. They never ask why, if that’s true, we need to have taxes. If we can just print more money and deficits will do no harm, then our tax rates should be 0%, correct?

                We wouldnt have deficits either. Print exactly the amount the government wants to spend that year and we wont have taxes OR deficits.

                It would work out just about as bad as you would expect.

                1. Technically we only need to print enough to pay our current debt service. We could run the rest of our spending on deficits and just amp the amount of money we print every year for our debt servicing.

                  We would have massive and uncontrollable inflation, but you could fund your government for a short time by doing nothing but running deficits and having enough money to pay the service.

                  1. We can have massive and uncontrollable inflation and no chance of default doing it my way too.

              4. They never ask why, if that’s true, we need to have taxes.

                For to promote equality, duh.

              5. We still need taxes to keep people in line lest they forget who is really in charge.

  3. The Internal Revenue Service typifies the atrocious degradation of governance in this country. Minimalistic, constitutional, republican rule has been incrementally morphed into pervasive authoritarianism, and the enforcement of tax laws is a perfect illustration of that.

    If I were elected President, the IRS would be the first pillar of federal totalitarianism to die a marvelously violent and bloody death.

    Fuck the IRS.

    1. The beautiful part is that the IRS is so hated by the American public, that legislation passed to abolish it wouldn’t be difficult (under most conditions).

      1. Is the IRS hated by those who look forward to tax time for “the money”?
        It isn’t just EIC recipients either. Ever know someone who increases his withholding in order to get a bigger tax return?

        1. Increasing your withholding, by e.g. decreasing your allowances on form W-4, is a rational response to a tax system that penalizes under-withholding. Just because the law essentially compels me to give the IRS a tax-free loan for most of the year doesn’t mean I suddenly love them when they give me my own damn money back.

          1. That should be an “interest-free loan”, not a tax-free one.

      2. People claim to hate the IRS until you suggest reforming it or touching the tax code, at which point they go apeshit and turn into government-worshiping Krugman clones.

  4. I’m willing to believe arguendo that the misconduct was limited to the office drones like they say. But I damn well want to hear their side of it, and anyone involved should be banned from government service for life.

    1. Nice one. If we’re going ahead and throwing around what totally implausible things we’d like to happen to the assholes responsible, mine would be to have them hung by their thumbs somewhere over the Grand Canyon.

      1. …”hung by their thumbs somewhere over the Grand Canyon.”

        AND lose their retirement benes!

      2. Yeah, I know. The workers will be all over this to the MSPB for any consequences they do face, and they do deserve due process if they haven’t gotten it yet. But for the breach of the public trust this appears to be, I like to think my proposal is really fitting.

        1. It definitely is. But the hard part for me is knowing that it’s never going to happen. There’s no fucking justice.

          Once again, and eternally so, fuck the IRS

      3. … have them hung by their thumbs somewhere over the Grand Canyon.

        For some reason, this is what your idea reminded me of.

        1. So that’s why he’s called Cliff Hanger!

          1. So that’s why he’s called Cliff Hanger!

            Hahahaha! I have a friend who was born in Iran, who moved to the USA whan he was 10. He is a native Farsi speaker, but he has picked up English expertly. He doesn’t even have an accent. His accent is the same as any native born Indiana/Michigan guy. But some idiomatic expressions never “made it” into his learning English. One of those was Cliffhanger. We went to see the Stallone movie, and my friend thought Stallone’s character was named Cliff Hanger. Also, onetime he needed a notary public. He thought it was some FedGov form called a “Note of Republic”. We were supposed to meet at the pier in Santa Monica one time, and he spent an hour driving around looking for The Pierre hotel.

            God I love that shit.

        2. Needz moar labelz.

      4. …”hung by their thumbs somewhere over the Grand Canyon.”

        We already have enough assholes in this State.

  5. Reason has been posting some pretty shitty stories content-wise, so here’s something that’ll brighten your weekend:

    Glenn Greenwald absolutely destroys Bill Maher on Benghazi and US intervention in the Middle East.

    1. “America is responsible for more militarism and violence than any other nation in the last 5 or 6 decades”

      -THIS IS WHAT GLENN GREENWALD ACTUALLY BELIEVES

      Don’t click the video. The first three-quarters is Maher licking Obama’s balls and claiming there is no Benghazi scandal. The last quarter-which I didn’t bother finishing-is Greenwald regurgitating every bullshit blame America platitude under the Paultard sun.

      1. I agree. Greenwald’s last tirade is full of horseshit. But that doesn’t mean his point concerning Benghazi was wrong.

      2. Maher is a loathsome demogogue carrying water for the administration. We shouldn’t expect him to be concerned about why four Americans were killed, and an innocent citizen was smeared by the Obama crew as the chief motivation behind it. He is concerned with advancing a far left agenda. That’s all. I think we might be better off if we simply ignored the odious little man.

      3. There is no question America is responsible for more militarism and violence than any other nation in the last 5 or 6 decades.

        You may try to argue that some of that violence was justified but even justifying the violence doesn’t change the fact that American militarism is top dog in the world.

        1. Yeah that’s right. America is more responsible for violence and militarism than the USSR, Red China, Modern China, etc you get the idea. Your statement is so wrong it’s completely fucking stupid. Peaceniks are as incapable of critical thought as any liberal.

          1. 1947-49 – U.S. helps command extreme-right Greece party in Civil War.
            Death toll: about 70,000 contributed by US-backed forces.

            1948-54 – CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion in Philippines.
            Death toll: about 11,000

            1950 – Independence movement crushed in Ponce, Puerto Rico
            Death toll: conservative historians estimated about 8,000 peasants.

            1950-53 – Korean War
            Death toll: about 1,776,000.

            1952 – CIA overthrows Democracy in Iran, installs Shah
            Death toll: about 20,000.

            1954 – CIA directs invasion of Guatemala after new Democracy there nationalized U.S.-occupied lands
            Death toll: about 140,000 missing and dead.

            1958 – In Lebanon, marine occupation against rebels
            Death toll: about 2,000.

            1960-75+ – Vietnam War including Cambodia and Laos
            Death toll: about 4,502,000 including civilians and resulting famines (conservative estimates).

            1961 – Cuba’s Bay of Pigs Invasion fails
            Death toll: about 4,000.

            1963 – In Iraq, CIA organizes coup against President and agrees to back formerly exiled Saddam
            Death toll: about 7,000 including civilians.

            1. So the US is responsible for the Korean War? Because we invaded North Korea, or what? Give me a break.

              1. This guy doesn’t seem to understand that most of this stuff was within the context of the Cold War.

                This is how we won the Cold War.

                No nuclear exchange. Just mostly through proxies.

                And it ended in victory.

                You can take almost all of them that way…

                Example 1:

                “1976-92 – CIA assists South-African rebels in Angola
                Death toll: median estimate at 550,000”

                To what extent was Cuba, China, and the USSR’s support of the MPLA responsible for that? Surely, they must be responsible for some of it?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..gn_support

                Is any resistance to communism acceptable in your world?

                1. Incidentally, I outlined a few excellent reasons not to get involved in Syria over the last week; well here’s a good reason to get involved…

                  You see all these proxy wars he’s referencing here? That’s a nice big chunk of how we won the Cold War. You want to fight the Iranians directly?

                  You want to wait until their nuclear and long range missile programs have been achieved–and then fight the Iranians?

                  Or would you rather engage them through a proxy war in Syria?

                  I’d rather engage them in a proxy war. Proxy wars are bloody, nasty, messes. I know it’s hard for some people that we don’t run our foreign policy in the best interests of Guatemala (or wherever), but if fighting a proxy war in Guatemala is in the best interests of American security, the that’s what we should do.

                  A nuclear war with the USSR would have been nasty, too. Losing to the USSR also would have been nasty.

                  1. I don’t want to fight them at all. I want to trade with them.

                    1. Me too.

                      But we should have a Plan B.

                  2. Ken Shultz| 5.11.13 @ 10:20PM |#
                    “Incidentally, I outlined a few excellent reasons not to get involved in Syria over the last week; well here’s a good reason to get involved…”

                    Lemme guess, Ken: Street cred with fundy Muslims!
                    Have I got it?

                    1. I outlined it above.

                      If we help the Syrian resistance, it will effectively be a proxy war with Iran.

                    2. “If we help the Syrian resistance, it will effectively be a proxy war with Iran.”

                      And just to be painfully obvious, as regrettable as proxy wars can be, appeasement (by any other name) can be a whole lot worse.

                      Oh, and I should probably mention again, I’ve got some pretty persuasive arguments for not getting involved in Syria, too. I’m certainly more reluctant about getting involved in Syria than I was about getting involved in Libya from a risk perspective.

                      In Libya, we weren’t picking a fight with Hezbollah. In Syria, we would be.

                      I don’t see any easy answers in Syria. …but I think there are big downsides to doing nothing, too.

                2. This is how we won the Cold War.

                  No nuclear exchange. Just mostly through proxies.

                  And it ended in crippling Pyrrhic victory.

                  Edited for reality

                  1. There wasn’t anything Pyrrhic about winning the Cold War.

                    Trade with China is all a plus.

                    The USSR not being much of a security threat is a huge plus.

                    Eastern Europe no longer under the yoke of communism–a huge plus.

                    All in the best interests of the United States.

              2. So the US is responsible for the Korean War? Because we invaded North Korea, or what? Give me a break.

                That’s true of half the things he lists. We’re at fault for the Somalian civil war? ‘Assisting’ the Indonesian coup? Virtually all the deaths in those two situations occurred as groups unrelated to the U.S. fought each other.

                Those numbers have nothing to do with America’s involvement.

                1. Hey, all those were reported in US newspapers! The US obviously is at fault!

            2. Oh, and incidentally, he’s listing our invasions and occupations along with our proxy wars–certainly, and that’s apples and oranges.

              A number of the proxy wars we fought were actually not in our best interests.

              But the invasions and occupations were the worst. I’ll take a proxy war over invading Vietnam or Iraq any day.

            3. Adding all of those up, the USA is way behind the Chicoms. Don’t forget that Mao killed around 77 million Chinese.

              -jcr

              1. I fucked up the discussion in one way by posting that retarded list and not sticking to the exact language used by Greenwald:

                i.e. “the last 5 or 6 decades — 2010-13, 2000-09, 1990-99, 1980-89, 1970-79 or 1960-1969”.

            4. Yeah, I must agree with PapayaSF. Putting the Korean War on that list kind of makes you a dumb-ass. The North invaded. Yes, we could’ve stood by and watched ALL the peninsula become a Stalinist hell-on-earth (and you can always make the case for non-intervention) but to put that on the list of U.S. sins just makes you look like some lefty Marxist English prof with his head up his ass.

              1. Not to mention that more than twice as many people died in the 3 years after the US left Viet Nam than did during the 10 previous war years. By the hands of the victors and their commie neighbors.

              2. It wasn’t my list. I didn’t put it on the fucking list. I grabbed said list off the internet without even reading it which is bad enough but speaks to negligence and impatient and not complete retardation.

                Secondly, it’s not meant to be a list of “US sins”. I was trying find a measure of the amount of violence perpetrated by the US in last 5 or 6 decades. Justified and unjustified violence — whatever — I didn’t intend to delve into that question.

                Tricerabottoms| 5.11.13 @ 4:04PM |#

                There is no question America is responsible for more militarism and violence than any other nation in the last 5 or 6 decades.

                You may try to argue that some of that violence was justified but even justifying the violence…

                1. There is no question America is responsible for more militarism and violence than any other nation in the last 5 or 6 decades.

                  You have to consider what the alternative would have been, which is not always easy admittedly. For example, if the CIA ‘assists’ in the overthrow of a government, what would the death toll have been without that assistance.

          2. 1964 – In Panama, troops kill protesters against US-owned canal
            Death toll: about 1,000

            1965 – CIA assists Indonesian coup
            Death toll: about 900,000

            1966 – Troops and bombers threaten pro-communist parties in Dominican Republic
            Death toll: about 3,000

            1966-96 – Green berets in Guatemala against rebels, US backs pro-American forces in country until 1996
            Death toll: about 200,000

            1970 – Directs marine invasion of Oman
            Death toll: about 2,000

            1973 – CIA directs coup to oust elected Marxist president in Chile
            Death toll: 30,000… 3,000 later disappeared under US-installed dictator

            1976-92 – CIA assists South-African rebels in Angola
            Death toll: median estimate at 550,000

            1981-90 – CIA directs Contra invasions in Nicaragua
            Death toll: median estimate at 30,000

            1982-84 – Marines expel Lebanese rebels, aided by Israel
            Death toll: 40,000

            1987-88 – US intervenes for Iraq against Iran
            Death toll: about 150,000 during time-frame, 100,000 during Desert Storm, 350,000 from resulting famine

            1989 – US invades to oust CIA-installed Panamanian government gone rouge
            Death toll: 2,000

            1992-94 – US-led occupation of Somalia during civil war
            Death toll: 50,000 in combat, 300,000 by starvation

            2001+ – US Occupies Afghanistan
            Death toll: 120,000 including civilians and combatants and resulting Opium Wars

            2003+ – Iraqi War
            Death toll: 665,000 also by starvation, displacement

            TOTAL: 10,431,000

            1. More people in Red China starved to death in the Great Leap Forward from 1959 to 1961- some 27 million.

          3. Okay, American, Red China and USSR have a healthy competition going for most violent and militaristic nation in the last 60 years.

            1. Yep, cause there wouldn’t have been a coup in Indonesia or civil wars around the world without the US.

              There was another side to the Vietnam & Korean Wars that have more culpability for the death toll than the US.

              Seriously, I’m surprised you retards don’t blame the US for all the deaths in WWII.

              1. It really fucking pathetic that Cyto had pull out Red China and USSR as comparisons to make us look good. Thats the real take away here. Number 1, 2 or 3 you’re still a rotten fucking asshole of a society.

                1. No shithead what’s pathetic is puffing up your list with events where America was not the primary instigator or a minor player. Or you just made shit up ie “Occupation of Somalia”.

                2. Tricerabottoms| 5.11.13 @ 6:12PM |#
                  …”Number 1, 2 or 3 you’re still a rotten fucking asshole of a society.”

                  You got two problems here:
                  1) You haven’t shown the US is in any of those positions. You were called on your bullshit, and then started waving your arms in the air.
                  @) …”a rotten fucking asshole of a society”.. compared to? France, who simply calls the US when someone threatens them?

                  1. That list is about as bad as saying that “humans killed humans and since Americans are human the US is to blame”.

                    To pretend that the story is not more complex than you presented it to be is mendacious in the extreme.

                  2. Sevo| 5.11.13 @ 6:49PM

                    You were called on your bullshit, and then started waving your arms in the air.

                    I’ll admit some arm flailing. I grabbed that list without reading it after googling American militarism.

                    I’m not backing off “No. 3 rotten fucking ‘militaristic’ asshole of a society” since 1953 or 1963 ( last 50 or 60 years).

                3. “We’re worse than the Nazis!”

                4. Name calling means you lose.

                  Pointing out that we did what we did in the midst of the Cold War isn’t exactly irrelevant either.

                  If I could get one idea across to the Arab Street, it would be this one–just about everything we did in the Muslim world before 1989, we did because of the Cold War.

                  We didn’t back a coup in Iran in 1953 because we hate Iranians. We did it because of the Cold War. We didn’t back Mubarak because we wanted to keep the Egyptian people down. We did it because before we were Egypt’s largest foreign donors, that distinction belonged to the USSR. We were displacing the USSR!

                  You can’t even understand our relationship with Israel prior to 1989 without taking the Cold War into consideration. I know Muslims like to imagine themselves the center of history and American foreign policy, but the Muslim world was just one sideshow of many to the U.S. during the Cold War.

                  The reason we had a relatively good relationship with Pakistan and a relatively strained relationship with India was because of the Cold War. No, the U.S. wasn’t trying to take over the Middle East–just like we weren’t trying to take over South America, either.

                  1. Ken Shultz| 5.11.13 @ 11:41PM

                    Name calling means you lose.

                    Cytotoxic| 5.11.13 @ 4:14PM

                    Your statement is so wrong it’s completely fucking stupid. Peaceniks are as incapable of critical thought as any liberal

                    According to Ken, I “won” 10 minutes into the conversation.

                    1. He said your statement was “fucking stupid”–not you.

                      Or are you saying you won because he called you a “peacenik”?

                      That’s pretty weak sauce.

                5. “It really fucking pathetic that Cyto had pull out Red China and USSR as comparisons to make us look good.”
                  No. That’s absurd. The overwhelming bulk of the instances of U.S. aggression and militarism in the last 60 years that you raised occurred in the context of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. To talk about U.S. militarism in the absence of that context is like attacking a woman for slapping a guy…who’s trying to rape her.

                6. “still a rotten fucking asshole of a society”

                  Really? That’s what you think of the USA? Why are you here and not over at the Noam Chomsky fan club, or wherever lefty fucktards hang out?

                  1. Lord Peter Wimsey| 5.12.13 @ 9:12PM |#

                    “still a rotten fucking asshole of a society”

                    Really? That’s what you think of the USA? Why are you here and not over at the Noam Chomsky fan club, or wherever lefty fucktards hang out?

                    Most societies are rotting assholes of coercion and violence, i.e drug wars, taxes and other good libertarian complaints like that. I just happen to live in this rotting asshole so the smell is stronger and tends to drown out the smell of the other rotting asshole societies.

                    My rotting asshole comment was more in the line of the Nietzche quote:

                    Madness is rare in individuals – but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.

            2. “Okay, American, Red China and USSR have a healthy competition going for most violent and militaristic nation in the last 60 years.”

              Congratulations!

              You discovered the Cold War.

              Thank God the good guys won, huh?

            3. Tricerabottoms| 5.11.13 @ 5:22PM |#
              “Okay, American, Red China and USSR have a healthy competition going for most violent and militaristic nation in the last 60 years.”

              Mao: 70-100,000,000 deaths, mostly Chinese civilians.
              Lenin and Stalin: 70-100,000,000 deaths, mostly random civilians.
              Pol pot, the various Kims, toss in another 10-20,000,000.
              Call it 200,000,000.
              US (even giving your warped accounting some cred) 5,000,000.
              Yep, real competition there…

              1. Sevo| 5.11.13 @ 10:55PM |#

                US (even giving your warped accounting some cred) 5,000,000.
                Yep, real competition there…

                US was lapped by the Chinese but still won the bronze medal. I’m backing off the bullshit about being “the most”.

                1. Forget that goddamn list. I don’t why I ever replied with that garbage.

                  1. Promise yourself. I won’t reply to anything again. Ever.

  6. I read something earlier which claimed the IRS functionaries were just trying to use a “shortcut” based on commonly recurring terminology. I did not see any mention of their reliance on terms such as “progressive” or “activist” or “fair” however.

  7. Teh Google Nooz coughed up a Salon headline for me a little while ago which read “Will Guns Kill 3D Printing?” or something to that effect.

    Even if I wanted to read it, Salon refuses to format itself in a readable fashion on my computer, but I think I can guess what it says.

    “It’s a shame a bunch of undisciplined hooligans and scofflaws can come along and to spoil things for the decent people like us; there oughtta be a LAW!”

    1. The hypothesis is that the gun manufacturers will lobby the government to shutdown or tightly regulate 3D printers because they want to protect their market share, which I think is plausible.

      1. Nah, the 2A community would not stand for it. Gun companies which toady up to the feds suffer for it.

      2. It’s not plausible. Even when the 3D printed guns are of much higher quality and much cheaper, most people aren’t going to be printing them. They’ll still be buying them from professional companies. If anything, gun companies will probably start printing and selling 3D printed guns rather than trying to tightly regulate the printers.

  8. We wouldnt have deficits either. Print exactly the amount the government wants to spend that year and we wont have taxes OR deficits.

    THIS IS WHAT A POST SCARCITY WORLD LOOKS LIKE!

    1. Zimbabwe is post scarcity?

      1. Zimbabwe’s last year with their own currency is hilarious. Inflation hit 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%.

        1. I remember reading a story about a restaurant requiring you to pay when you ordered, because by the time they made the meal, the money wouldnt cover the costs anymore.

          I think it was mostly a joke. Mostly.

          1. At hyperinflaction rates, it’s definitely true.

          2. 89,700,000,000,000,000,000,000%. It’s unquestionably true. After about half an hour, money would have probably lost half its value.

            1. Actually, scratch that. It’s like 100,000% a minute. After half an hour, money would be worth virtually nothing. You’d have to spend immediately.

              At that point, I doubt anyone would even be using Zimbabwean dollars. They were probably bartering and using foreign currency already.

              1. Yep. Or going with precious metals, or barter.

                The currency might lose value, but a five pound sack of beans is a five pound sack of beans.

              2. Long before that point the currency would cease being a common medium of exchange.

              3. “At that point, I doubt anyone would even be using Zimbabwean dollars.”

                Oh, I’m sure they were used, if you get my meaning…

  9. “I’m not broke. I still have checks left.”

  10. There’s just no story here. Now, if the IRS had targeted abortion-support groups or gun control groups, it would be front page in all the Top. Newspapers. and the lead on all the Top. Television Networks.

    1. You forgot the LGBMT groups.

  11. Low level bureaucrats don’t decide who does and doesn’t get targeted. Low level bureaucrats don’t make decisions–by definition.

    There are three sure things in life: death, taxes, and low level bureaucrats writing memos to cover their asses when their superiors make them do something outside of their guidelines.

    If someone digs deep enough, we will find those memos (emails, whatever)–as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

    The IRS’ explanation for this assumes a level of low level autonomy that simply does not exist in government bureaucracies. All of the IRS’ big decisions about who does and doesn’t get targeted are made by the people at the bottom of the totem pole?!

    That’s insulting to our intelligence.

  12. “However, we cannot accept her statement that this attack on our organizations and our liberty was orchestrated by low-level IRS employees in the Cincinnati office. We have proof that the same questions were being asked of groups from Virginia to Hawaii. We have further proof that agents admitted that they were being told by ‘higher ups’ not to process applications from “TEA Party Groups.”

    Low level bureaucrats do not make these decisions.

    It’s kind of interesting, too, that with the IRS, a lot of times, you have to essentially prove your innocence with them. If they say you owe more than you paid, in practice, they don’t have to prove you do–you have to prove you don’t owe them any money…

    But we’re supposed to take the IRS’ word on this?

    If they had as much evidence against any one of us as we have against them on this? Then they’d audit us at the very least. The House of Representatives should really take a close look at this.

    1. It happened to me once. I sold some small amount of stock at a loss and never reported it. A year later I got a letter charging me taxes on the sale price of the stock. Apparently their entering argument is that all sales are at 100% profit unless you prove otherwise.

      I was able to, and redid my return showing less income and thus slightly less tax owed. I never heard of it again, oddly…

      1. So, you signed an amended return under penalty of perjury…

        But the IRS expects us to take their word for it.

        Yesterday they were saying that the Treasury Department had conducted an internal investigation–I think we’re supposed to take their word for it, too?

        I’m not saying that any crime was committed here–or that I know for a fact that someone up in the Obama Administration ordered this. But I think we’ve got evidence that something wrong happened here–at least enough for an independent investigation. We’ve got more evidence against the IRS (given their apology) than the IRS had against you.

        1. I’m sure the bank reported the sale to them and they choked on the discrepancy between my original return and the sale proceeds. It’s not entirely unreasonable.

          The worst error I faced was when I moved and got new plates for my car. The Maryland DMV assessed me a $2,000 fine by mail for going two years without insurance. The dates they cited started before I even went car shopping. My insurance company cleared that up right quick, to their credit.

          1. Maryland DMV is out of their freaking minds…

            $2,000? California isn’t that bad!

            1. You’d think that if it were a problem they’d have mailed me something, you know, within a couple of months or something. I don’t know if I had a bench warrant out on me at the time; thankfully I spent most of those two years outside the state on active duty.

              1. thankfully I spent most of those two years outside the state on active duty.

                Jesus, makes me wonder…is the military less regimented than the state of Maryland?

                1. I don’t have a good example. My four years there were all in a military school, so everything outside the walls was freer than I was used to.

          2. I was fined by DMV for not having insurance during a time after they *knew* I had gotten rid of the car. My insurance company straightened it out — and told me this *happens all the time*. Apparently, enough people roll over and pay up to avoid the hassle that the state finds it worth doing to raise a little extra revenue.

            1. If any private-sector business operated this way it would be called a racket.

  13. Wonder if any group with the word “Occupy” in its name was also singled out for the special colonoscopy treatment?

    1. Do they even have money?

  14. I had to provide testimony in a policy hearing at a large executive branch campus in the DC area this week (probably shouldn’t identify farther than that.) Amazingly, though this department would not be what you would consider a security target, at the gate we all had to get out of our car, frisked, our luggage searched, and mirrors went under the chassis. Then two more security checkpoints and TSA-style entrances to each building after we parked.

    Inside? Hundreds of civil-servant types like you would find at any county administration building. Mostly middle-aged clock-watchers — but ones with the power to hold up major policy merely by coming in late that day. At the beginning of the hearing I was in, the fifty-ish moderator pumped her fist and announced she was only three weeks from retirement, to much applause and cheering from her colleagues.

    Long story short, it wouldn’t surprise me if some low-level bureacrats actually were responsible for these acts at the IRS, probably because they have the power but no one really cares what anyone else is doing, as long as they are out the door by 5pm each day.

    1. Parasites gonna parasite.

    2. In my experience, lower level people are not given the opportunity to make any decision that might embarrass the higher ups.

      At the same time, they’re expected to take a fall for the higher ups when the higher ups make a mistake.

      As long as it doesn’t get them disciplined, they don’t mind taking a hit for the boss. But they will document what they’re doing that’s out of the ordinary beforehand–just in case the screw up is really big and the boss can’t really protect them.

      Since the dawn of history, lower level bureaucrats have been taking the blame publicly–and writing a CYA memo beforehand in case things really get bad.

      Even Monica Lewinski was smart enough not to wash that dress–and I think she was dumber than your average bureaucrat.

  15. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ic-income/

    So how dumb is this on the scale of one to ten?

    1. I like that they call that ‘Wonkblog’ thus continuing the long and storied tradition of no one other than total assholes referring to themselves as wonks.

      1. Wonk is shorthand for a useless person who knows enough to be dangerously arrogant.

    2. The fact that it is universal is crucial. This eliminates income traps that can cause severe work disincentives. A UBI answers the Foucauldian critique about the welfare state being a way for the state to stigmatize and control marginalized populations. There are no state officials determining whether or not a single mom “deserves” help or drug tests and other invasive, humiliating requirements. Others see UBI as a way of recognizing the value of decommodified caregiving and other cooperative, non-labor activities, by making sure there is space in the economy to both reward and carry them out.

      Yes but it creates an income trap with a disincentive to hire. If work must be done that is of a value lower than the cost of labor, then it will be outsourced, done under the table, or not done at all.

      These people are fucking stupid.

      1. I think they’re claim that work disincentives would be eliminated is the most egregious instance of hand-waving I’ve ever seen someone perform (including actual satire).

    3. My dumb-o-meter redlined then burst into flames.

      That it was published, seriously, in a national publication worries the shit out of me, but I’ve gotten that feeling a lot lately.

    4. Goddammit.

      Medicare is able to hold down costs better than private insurance, and Social Security is working significantly better than 401(k)s or private pensions in providing income security in old age. These programs work very well, and as Ezra Klein noted, they are part of the solution, rather than the problem, to providing health care and security in old age.

      Medicare holds costs down by failing to pay doctors and controlling what procedures you’re allowed to get. Social security provides better income security by giving seniors money above the amount that they paid in, thus creating a completely unsustainable system of old age welfare. Meanwhile, it disincentivizes savings which results in America having a disastrously low savings rate that will screw us royally when we can’t afford the level of social security that we currently have.

      These people are fucking stupid.

      1. And the average rate of return you’d get from investing the payroll taxes you pay would be higher than the equivalent rate from SS (and you could pass it on to heirs).

    5. That Post blog on the UBI is absolutely insane.

      It reminds me of the idiot “Fair Tax” and its UBI (or what they call a “prebate”) that the nutjob Neal Boortz slobbered on and on about until he just gave up.

      1. The irony there is that the prebate was included so that morons like you wouldn’t be able to wail and gnash your teeth about the tax being regressive.

        1. Gave shitstain an ‘out’, did it?

        2. Also that the prebate was made unconditional instead of forcing everyone to submit receipts every month showing they’d spent $500+ in order to get their monthly money, which would have done nothing but waste the time of the people filling it out and money paying low-level government drones to process it all.

    6. Sadly enough, such luminaries as Friedman and Hayek supported a universal income scheme. It’s arguably less-worse than the current safety net, but it’s still a huge, steaming bowl of shit.

  16. Did the Internal Revenue Service politically target conservative organizations when “front line” IRS employees stalled applications for tax-exempt status?

    IRS knew tea party targeted in 2011

    WASHINGTON ? A federal watchdog’s upcoming report says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups in 2011.
    The disclosure contradicts public statements by former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who repeatedly assured Congress that conservative groups were not targeted.

    1. That’ll reduce debt, right? Well, won’t it?

      1. Amazing how the “Occupy” movement was just a brief flicker of a flame a couple of years ago — yet just about their only identified goal, student loan forgiveness, is being fought for, despite no groundswell behind it. Meanwhile, legitimate causes that people dedicate time and passion towards are quickly dismissed.

        1. Occupy is one of those hilarious groups that managed to have much more impact than their numbers and support would suggest. They were loud and obnoxious and would clutter up any internet forum or comment section where people were making fun of them, and they would just whine about how mean everyone was being, how no one really got what Occupy was all about.

          Fuck those people. The fact that Occupy has since morphed into nothing but a bunch of violent nutcases wandering around breaking windows is what I expected to happen, and I’m still amazed so few people in the media saw it coming.

          1. All the “right” people, including Senator Warren, are sympathetic to Occupy’s Goals.

  17. Others see UBI as a way of recognizing the value of decommodified caregiving and other cooperative, non-labor activities, by making sure there is space in the economy to both reward and carry them out.

    De-what, now?

    1. It’s when someone helps a fellow human being out of empathy and compassion; two things that I’m sure you’re not familiar with being a sociopathic, tea-bagging loserdopian, and all.

      I don’t even know why I’m addressing a person whose politics are rooted in adolescence. You’re going to need to grow up a bit if you want to sit at the adult’s table and talk about big people things. Doncha think, bub?

      1. Yeah, liberals have so much empathy and compassion that conservatives routinely lap them in the amount of money contributed to charities. Wake me when you grow a brain.

  18. Elizabeth Warren sponsors petition to make student loan rates equal to Federal Reserve loan rates for banks.

    Wake me up when she sponsors a petition to allow graduates to sue their alma mater for malpractice. And a refund.

    1. Yep.

      Add ending federal loan guarantees and making student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.

      Fuck academia hard.

      1. Better: put academia at least partly on the hook for student loans discharged in bankruptcy. That’ll force them to clean up their act in a hurry.

  19. Speaking of oppressive bureacracies, I just watched Iron Sky, the Nazis-on-the-moon “comedy.” For how lame the plot and writing were I’m shocked at the high production values.

    1. I couldn’t decide if I was impressed or aggravated through most of the movie. Visually I really liked it, but the entire movie was a conscious attempt to Godwin themselves.

      1. You know who else consciously attempted to Godwin themselves?

        1. Prince Harry?

        2. Mel Brooks?

        3. Jesse James?

  20. I’m no fan of the IRS but I’ve received many calls from so called “Tea Party” organizations which I suspect are just shams to raise money to pay organizers. If their is evidence of this being any area scammers are gravitating to then IRS scrutiny is not politically motivated just smart profiling. Seems “reasonable” to me.

    1. Sounds like conjecture lacking any real evidence.

      1. “reasonable”

        Sounds like DRINK!! to me.

    2. They haven’t offered any proof that there was reasonable suspicion and they actually apologized to Tea Party groups. The fact that they apologized rather than offering the argument that it was a frequent area for scammers tells me that it was politically motivated.

      Not only that, but I saw an article yesterday saying that 0 of the 100+ groups treated this way by the IRS was found to have done anything wrong. If it was an attempt to crack down on scammers, I would expect they would have at least caught one person.

    3. Individual| 5.11.13 @ 4:42PM |#
      …”If their is evidence of this being any area scammers are gravitating to then IRS scrutiny is not politically motivated just smart profiling”…

      Yeah, what if?
      “Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general’s report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.”

      Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/pol…..z2T1KzTlwj

  21. I don’t even know why I’m addressing a person whose politics are rooted in adolescence.

    I don’t know how the comment scoring system works, so I’m just gonna call “TOUCHDOWN!” on that.

    1. As the Obama years churn on, it’s getting harder and harder to do satire and parody.

  22. The Kochtopus! is all in for the biometric ID database.

    1. The Charles Koch Foundation contributes money to Buzzfeed Politics.

      This makes me even more confused as to how liberals expect the evil Kochs to make the LA Times into some sort of hard right news organ when they already are major contributors to a staunchly left-wing organization like Buzzfeed.

    2. Stop lying SIV.

      1. RTFA

        Charles Koch, Cato,and Reason are all pushing the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, hard. They don’t fucking care what anti-liberty pro-statist bullshit is in it, they want the bill to pass.

        1. I just did RTFA and all I see ins innuendo worthy of shithead.
          Now, YOU are making the claim, YOU do some pull quotes of something other than ‘read the link.
          Let’s see it.

        2. SIV, still waiting; let’s see the evidence.

          1. I wouldn’t count on MonkeyAIDS to engage you intelligently.

          2. Are they opposing the bill? Because I haven’t heard a peep outside of the wholesale condemnation and ridicule of Heritage’s case against it. Why no mention of all the anti-liberty garbage in the immigration bill? The “perfect” (no national id) is the enemy of the “good” (path-to-citizenship amnesty).

            1. SIV, here’s your quote:
              “Charles Koch, Cato,and Reason are all pushing the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, hard.”

              Now we get:
              “Are they opposing the bill?”

              I called bullshit on the first and I still do.

  23. I’ve received many calls from so called “Tea Party” organizations which I suspect are just shams to raise money to pay organizers.

    I’ve received many calls from so called “charitable” organizations which I suspect are just shams to raise money to pay organizers.

    Why hasn’t the IRS clamped down on the Red Cross?

  24. The IRS may have also targeted pro-Israel and Jewish religious organizations.

    In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.” . . .

    The Administration’s public policies.

    1. The Imperial Court’s dictates are sacrosanct, and to counter them is unbearable sin. The noble IRS shall struggle against such evil!

    2. My goodness!
      You can shrug off fucking with the tea-party folks; ‘no divisions’ to steal an analogy.
      Not true with with ‘Israel-related’ orgs; they GOT divisions!

    3. The Administration’s public policies.

      From which we can infer that the Administration has private policies.

    4. Not all Jewish organizations. Just the uppity ones.

  25. When you mess with the tax collection process, you get fucked by the IRS.

    When the IRS messes with the tax collection process, “mistakes were made.”

    1. “mistakes were made.”

      Yep, ‘The passive voice is invoked’. ‘Those who made the mistakes have taken responsibility’.

    1. A link I found there after reading that one:

      http://bogpaper.com/2013/05/09…..democracy/

      Then the Un UnNazied the world forever. Yea, Un.

  26. Am I the only one who took a few minutes to realize that the right side of the IRS logo is in fact an eagle, and not a tentacled monster that’s toying with the scales of justice?

    1. House IRS

      Sigil: A Kraken wrapping its tentacles around the scales of justice

      Words: WE DO NOT SOW

      1. +1 Salt Wife

    2. I see an olive branch, a set of balance scales, and a seagull hailing a taxi.

      1. those are justice scales? I thought it was a bikini top

    3. It has been said in long forgotten tomes that even in the days before the creation of taxes, the IRS was waiting in the deepest, darkest sleep in its sunken city far beneath the sea.

      One day there would be taxes.

      One day it would awaken.

      1. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh IRS Washington wgah’nagl fhtagn.

        1. This has made my day.

    4. Am I the only one who took a few minutes to realize that the right side of the IRS logo is in fact an eagle, and not a tentacled monster that’s toying with the scales of justice?

      Why can’t it be both?

    1. “In Ancient Egypt, cooking oil was taxed, and on top of that, people had to buy their taxed cooking oil from the Pharaoh’s monopoly, and were prohibited from reusing previously purchased oil.”

      Yeah, but that can’t possibly have any modern relevance.

      1. “Oliver Cromwell placed a tax on Royalists, who were his political opponents, taking one tenth of their property. He then used that money to fund his activities that were aimed against the Royalists.”

        That, either.

    2. I highly recommend this book, which has many fascinating details. E.g.: in pre-revolutionary France, royalty and the aristocracy and priests were largely or entirely exempt from taxes, while the poor were taxed heavily, on the theory that that made them work harder and become more productive, like pruning a tree.

      1. Thanks. Ordered.

        1. Great! Let us know what you think after you’ve had a chance to get into it.

          1. Ordered a copy too.

  27. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com

    1. Robin, thanks. That was by-far the best blow-job I’ve had.
      Worth every penny of the $83.

      1. You lasted a whole hour?

        1. Guess the service was just that bad.

  28. OT:
    CA (natch) is considering requiring insurance companies to require coverage for brain injuries:
    “Battle for brain-injury rehab coverage”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/hea…..507359.php (most is hidden behind a pay-wall, trust me here)
    OK, so we know the result of requiring coverage which few need; those sorts of ‘unintended consequences’ are what the CA government is all about.
    But in this case, the ‘required coverage’ specifies certain rehab facilities. Now, let’s be clear here: The requirement is NOT that certain treatments be covered. Nope. The requirement is that the injured go to *THAT* facility for whatever treatment that facility offers!
    The CA legislature has few equals for stupidity. I know, you guys in NJ, IL or MI contest that point. But has any of your legislatures proposed that insurance companies pay that company right there for whatever they are currently providing?

    1. DailyMotion? You some kind of hipster?

  29. Dunno if anybody has brought it up or not, but an NYT op-ed on the matter hat-tips Jesse Walker.

    1. Of course, they managed to bungle the link…

    2. That’s a good article, once again showing that Ross Douthat is hands down the best op-ed writer the New York Times has.

      The comments are as fascist as you’d expect at the New York Times, though.

    3. “But moods and prejudices linger even after panics recede.”

      Yes, but to be worthwhile, they have to accomplish something.
      Right now we have lefty apologists covering Obozo’s ass with claims that ‘tea party groups deserve it’ and ‘Benghazi cause BOOOOSH!
      Until that crap is shown to be so much bullshit, the moods and prejudices won’t mean a fart in a high wind.

  30. In case area shit-for-brains poster claims inflation is only a concern for wingnuts and then becomes unintelligible because of sucking Soros/Buffet/Obama cock, here is an interesting column from David Rosenberg, a guy who called it on the tech crash and the housing crash. He’s in charge of Gluskin Scheff. In this and earlier columns, he makes the case that inflation is coming and the bull market in bonds will soon end. Paradigm shift.

    If you told someone even five years ago that we’d be talking about deflation with a gold price north of US$1,400 an ounce, he’d have called 911 (even with this year’s 13% liquidity-squeeze correction). If there is deflation out there, someone forgot to tell the folks in India about it, because the country just imported more than 100 metric tons of the yellow metal for the second month in a row (or there must be one heck of a dowry season taking hold).

    http://business.financialpost……ars-oh-my/

    1. Indians’ questionable fashion sense and increasing wealth to indulge in bling is a sign of their sophisticated understanding of global monetary policy?

  31. my best friend’s mother brought in $17471 a week ago. she been making cash on the laptop and got a $339200 home. All she did was get blessed and put into use the tips given on this web page go to this site home tab for more detail— http://WWW.JOBS34.COM

    1. And her income almost covers her STD treatments.

  32. If you like to write to Douglas Shulman, CEO at the IRS, he lives at:
    Douglas H Shulman

    Home (202) 333-0234
    2706 36th St NW
    Washington, DC 20007-1421
    Age: 45-49
    Associated: Susan L Anderson

  33. Sounds like a whole lotta crazy smack to me dude.

    http://www.Secure-Web.tk

  34. “We had a shortcut in the process. It wasn’t appropriate. We learned about it and we fixed it”

    Hey Yankees… you can take your apology and your trophy and shove ’em straignt up your ass! — Tanner Boyle, Bad News Bears

  35. This is what happens when Neo-Bolsheviks run the show.

  36. On the bright side, when you have a political philosophy premised almost entirely on a persecution complex, sometimes it’s good to actually have something to point to.

    1. As opposed to the “Republicans are evil!!!!!” political philosophy?

      1. His is not a political philosophy. It is a political feeling. A philosophy would involve a level of reasoning.

        The arguments will be, so what, they deserved it. /progtard

        I can feel your anger. It gives you focus …makes you stronger

  37. until I looked at the receipt which said $7134, I didn’t believe that my sister woz like trully bringing in money parttime on their apple labtop.. there friends cousin started doing this for less than 7 months and at present paid for the morgage on their apartment and bourt Lotus Elise. read more at, http://www.up444.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.