nice try..but if you want to know for sure..ask UB, Doer, Wormie, Wyteberry Widow or any of my other friends who have my pic
jelly much?..i'm gonna have me some cookies
Chuck Schumer Calls on IRS to Crack Down on Tea Party Funding
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
jelly much?..i'm gonna have me some cookies
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Why is it I'm not surprised your sole argument is to denigrate the opposition?how do you know this?..maybe they received a higher percentage of those conservatives than liberals..if you look at the chart conservatives are equal to progressives..and just like "shit flows downhill"..so does the intelligence of the conservative..the inbred ones specifically tea partiers..why is it i'm not surprised that they received the most scrutiny?..they are idiots
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I don't ask liars for information. If what you say is true, you could easily prove it. Seems like I hit a nerve there. Just how fat are you? Fat? Damn fat? Or DAMN!!!!nice try..but if you want to know for sure..ask UB, Doer, Wormie, Wyteberry Widow or any of my other friends who have my pic
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SmS70WAYNA
chuck schumer takes the stage at 4:50 and immediately begins talking about the tea party in specific, describing them as "taking a sledgehammer to Democrat priorities"
OP is NOT incorrect. chuckie wants to silence those who disagree with his vision for america and his narrative.
Edit:
Timeline
0:00 to 4:50 Shitty Hendrix style acid rock over a slideshow of headlines and other nonsense. This aint a sports movie, we dont need a fuckin montage.
5:50 to 49:30 chucky's usual engaging, gregarious and inoffensive rhetorical style, delivering a message that is, despite it's Bon Homie and aw shucks appeal is 100% divorced from reality. basically "if some government is good, more government must be even better" and "we (democrats and other "progressives") need to go on the offensive explaining all the awesome things government will do for you, and increase the saturation of our already ludicrous populist message through our friends in the media" followed by "rush limbaugh and fox news are evil, they are too friendly with conservatives and should be silenced" and about 50 references to "The Tea Party Elite" and Koch Brothers name checks.
49:30 to end he begins discussing "Citizen's United" and how this ruling has created the tea party, and the tea party should be shut down by the IRS and other government regulators because they are too dangerous to the "progressive" narrative.
OP's assessment was spot on. this may be a first for "The Blaze", which despite it's name has very little to do with smoking dope.
Schuylarr, are you hoping there are some more blind and stupid people on RIU that won't catch Obama admitting the IRS over stepped it's bounds? What do you think he meant when he said "The misconduct of the IRS is inexcusable" ?i don't see anything in the above post where the president "admits" to anything.
unless you've completed non-profit paperwork..you don't have a leg to stand on..tell me, red i have this feeling you work for the IRS..amiright..keeping a little secret..but i can tell
And this has absolutely nothing to do with if you've had a 501c or not.
Wear them clown shoes proud, dear.
My God, no wonder you're unemployed.
My goodness Schuylarr, the chart told the whole story and you ask how do you know this?how do you know this?..maybe they received a higher percentage of those conservatives than liberals..if you look at the chart conservatives are equal to progressives..and just like "shit flows downhill"..so does the intelligence of the conservative..the inbred ones specifically tea partiers..why is it i'm not surprised that they received the most scrutiny?..they are idiots
The figures show how many 501c's were targeted by the IRS, not how many applied.
This is pretty simple shit, it's hard to believe it's giving you such a hard time.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
wow, someone really lit a fire under your ass, red. you are really burning with anger.
i find it funny that you have the sheer audacity to tell anyone else that they ar ignoring the facts after telling three massive lies last night within 20 minutes.
and it's also pretty funny that you think shcumer's letter to the IRS is controversial in any way.
get some help with your anger problems before your torch goes out early.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, look.
red the serial liar thinks schumer's speech to some political group is the same as his actual request to the IRS.
and he's getting bitterly angry. smoke out the ears angry.
too funny.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there goes red, trying to convince himself he won something.
and he has the gall to call someone a liar.
see4
Well-Known Member
Says the man who touched his children before burning them alive.
echelon1k1
New Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
where does he request that the IRS do that?
here, just point out where:
Dear Commissioner Shulman:
We write to ask the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to immediately change the administrative framework for enforcement of the tax code as it applies to groups designated as social welfare organizations. These groups receive tax and other advantages under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter, IRC or the Code), but some of them also are engaged in a substantial amount of political campaign activity. As you know, we sent a letter last month expressing concerns about the 501(c)(4) issue; an investigation this week by the New York Times has uncovered new, specific problems on how c)4)s conduct business. We wanted to address those new concerns in this letter.
IRS regulations have long maintained that political campaign activity by a 501(c)(4) entity must not be the primary purpose of the organization. These regulations are intended to implement the statute, which requires that such organizations be operated exclusively for the public welfare. But we think the existing IRS regulations run afoul of the law since they only require social welfare activities to be the 'primary purpose' of a nonprofit when the Code says this must be its 'exclusive' purpose. In recent years, this daylight between the law and the IRS regulations has been exploited by groups devoted chiefly to political election activities who operate behind a facade of charity work.
A related concern, raised in a March 7[SUP]th [/SUP]New York Times article, concerns whether certain nonprofits may be soliciting corporate contributions that are then treated by the company as a business expense eligible for a tax deduction. The Times wrote: Under current law, there is little to no way to tell whether contributions are being deducted, especially because many of the most political companies are privately held. This potential abuse distorts the objectives of vital revenue mechanisms and undermines the faith that we ask citizens to place in their electoral system.
We propose that the IRS make three administrative changes to curtail these questionable practices and bring IRS tax regulations back into alignment with the letter and spirit intended by those who crafted the Code:
· First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its primary purpose regulation that is consistent with the Codes 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be primarily related to social welfare activities, without defining what primarily means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Codes exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
· Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to social welfare. Organizations should be required to show their math to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the primary purpose regulation.
· Third, 501(c)(4) organizations should be required to state forthrightly to potential donors what percentage of a donation, if any, may be taken as a business expense deduction. As the New York Times reported in its March 7[SUP]th[/SUP]article, some of these organizations do not currently inform donors whether a contribution is tax deductible as a business expense at all.
The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter. We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes.
Sincerely,
Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
pretty much.why is it i'm not surprised that they received the most scrutiny?..they are idiots
the other thing they like to ignore is that the extra scrutiny came from a self-described "conservative republican".
so much for some wild conspiracy or scandal, turns out to be more bullshit from the forum's biggest liars and easily duped partisans.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, you mean the completely unattributed chart that comes from some horribly biased "news" source that you subscribe to?
maybe dean chambers made the chart. probably all skewed knowing beenthere the idiot.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you haven't demonstrated that yet.
cite it, or it's as reliable as those skewed polls that you fell in love with.