IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[fskimospy]

It's not nationalization though; all the insurance companies are still private or publicly-traded companies, not entities under government control. Medicaid is nationalized insurance, but Medicaid is not the only insurer that falls under the regulations set forth in the ACA, and it doesn't represent all Obamacare sign-ups. If Obamacare took all the private insurance companies and said, "you are now operated by the Federal Government," yes, that's nationalization.

Maybe you will have better luck than I did.

 

[werepossum]

I know what you did, and you're trying it again. As I have mentioned many times by your attempt to define the word, that means that effectively every single industry in America is nationalized. That is a clearly absurd definition that has no support.

I quoted Wikipedia. I quoted pieces from economics departments. All of these showed that nationalization is either state ownership or the state actually running the business. None of that is the case here.

Your stubborn refusal to accept terms you learn in Econ 101 is simply baffling to me.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nationalization.asp

http://www.economicsimplicities.com/ec0532.htm

http://m.sfgate.com/business/article/What-really-happens-when-banks-are-nationalized-3169639.php

Tell me how many more you need. I can do this all day. You're just looking nuttier and nuttier.

Every single industry in America EXCEPT health insurance is not at all the same as health insurance. Show me one other industry where the unelected bureaucracy can decide that a company must pay for a third party service. You won't for instance find the auto insurance industry forced to pay for oil changes, even though oil changes are necessary to keep a car in good health. You won't find the life insurance industry forced to buy you a cemetery plot in addition to mutually agreed benefits and costs.

Yet even if you could find such an example for every industry, you'd still be faced with my definition being ONE correct usage of the word, no matter how butt hurt you may be by that usage. The most you could ever do is put forth another definition as being better or more precise.

 

[werepossum]

It's not nationalization though; all the insurance companies are still private or publicly-traded companies, not entities under government control. Medicaid is nationalized insurance, but Medicaid is not the only insurer that falls under the regulations set forth in the ACA, and it doesn't represent all Obamacare sign-ups. If Obamacare took all the private insurance companies and said, "you are now operated by the Federal Government," yes, that's nationalization.

I'd agree that's a more precise definition; my argument is that it is not the only definition. If we agree that anything short of full federal government ownership is regulation, not nationalization, then we agree that the federal government can dictate literally every step of every industry and nothing has changed. We could go full fascist where in theory ownership is private but in fact behavior is completely controlled not by the private sector owners but by their government overlords while still pretending that nothing has changed.

However, my original comment was a less precise definition, that of taking control, in pointing out the federal government's power grab in moving health insurance from the states' control to federal control. If you have a better term I'm up for it, but I'm not pretending that this power grab is immaterial.

 

[fskimospy]

Every single industry in America EXCEPT health insurance is not at all the same as health insurance. Show me one other industry where the unelected bureaucracy can decide that a company must pay for a third party service. You won't for instance find the auto insurance industry forced to pay for oil changes, even though oil changes are necessary to keep a car in good health. You won't find the life insurance industry forced to buy you a cemetery plot in addition to mutually agreed benefits and costs.

Yet even if you could find such an example for every industry, you'd still be faced with my definition being ONE correct usage of the word, no matter how butt hurt you may be by that usage. The most you could ever do is put forth another definition as being better or more precise.

What you are referring to is simply the minimum benefits required to be considered compliant with federal standards. There are lots of examples of this. Funny that you mention cars, as the federal government has long required that trucking companies not only buy a third party product (insurance), but they stipulate what requirements that insurance must fulfill. I can name plenty more if you would like.

I guess trucking is now nationalized, huh.

As for your definition, no. It is simply a wrong definition. It is not a component of a larger, more complete definition, it is a definition that includes many activities that are not nationalization in it, therefore it's wrong. This might make you mad, but there's no way around it.

 

[werepossum]

What you are referring to is simply the minimum benefits required to be considered compliant with federal standards. There are lots of examples of this. Funny that you mention cars, as the federal government has long required that trucking companies not only buy a third party product (insurance), but they stipulate what requirements that insurance must fulfill. I can name plenty more if you would like.

I guess trucking is now nationalized, huh.

As for your definition, no. It is simply a wrong definition. It is not a component of a larger, more complete definition, it is a definition that includes many activities that are not nationalization in it, therefore it's wrong. This might make you mad, but there's no way around it.

Um, no. Trucking companies have to buy insurance for themselves; trucking companies do not (yet) have to buy insurance for their clients.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, no. Trucking companies have to buy insurance for themselves; trucking companies do not (yet) have to buy insurance for their clients.

What do you think insurance is? The primary way insurance is used is to pay for things for their clients, be it repairs to a vehicle, personal injury judgments, etc.

Regardless, the federal government requires trucking companies to make a purchase from a third party that has absolutely nothing to do with their shipping transaction. If anything, that's even more onerous than requiring a transaction that two parties agree to to have certain stipulations.

Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing the insurance industry with you. I feel like we made progress tonight where you at least admitted some fault with what you were saying. It's a start.

 

[ivwshane]

For one thing, you could easily randomly select a certain percentage of applications for further review, and you could create procedures around what that review looks like such that "rogue agents" aren't asking for all sorts of crazy things from those who they politically disagree with. Transparency is key, that way you know the IRS isn't being used as a political attack dog.

Applying scrutiny to one group based on political affiliation is an affront to freedom. All those who participated in such activity should be in jail.

The IRS tracks well over a million not-for-profits and charities. Attempting to make this a budget issue is laughably weak sauce considering there were certainly no more than three hundred 501(c)(4) applications from conservative groups in the almost three years this was going on.

You both miss the point. How does one determine if an entity is political or not? How does one determine if that entitie's primary purpose is non political? You are asking the IRS to perform an action it was never intended to do, which is to investigate non monitory related activities. Random audits/samples isn't how the IRS does it's job (as far as I can tell).

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

That's baloney. Nobody is embracing corruption, that's just your silly notion that anonymity equals corruption. Sorry, but that's nonsense.



Last I checked, nobody gets more than one vote, regardless of dollars. If they want to use their money to have their message heard by the people and have those people act on it as they choose, there's nothing wrong with it.

A fine example of cognitive dissonance.

Its well documented that money buys more influence (elections plus laws and regulations) than a single vote, yet you (and most Republicans) cling to this belief that it doesn't.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is illegal (at some level - Presidential excepted) to use Federal funds for political activity.

Should a person at the IRS be filtering for political reasons - that is illegal and should be punished accordingly. that does not indicate a slap on the wrist/censure.


1) It should not have happened.
2) Especially at the IRS
3) Response should be swift, no waffling of justification or searching for a grey area to avoid executing the punishment

Can't cite any actual statutory violation, huh? Maybe there wasn't one. With the burden of proof on the accuser, the prosecution, there isn't a legal case to be made, anyway.

If you read what Lerner said, and if you remember the resignations, you can easily conclude that this has been dealt with appropriately. The IRS will be dealing with the ever so sensitive & vulnerable Teatards with kid gloves from now on, I suspect.

The rest of it is just a nice witch hunt, what Issa is good at, and what Repubs hope is a good distraction going into the election.

 

[bpatters69]

Of all the scandals that have rocked this administration, the IRS scandal is the one that makes me the angriest. I am a conservative but I would be just as angry if any Gubmit employee used their position to hinder or otherwise damage a political group or person because that group or person did not agree with the views of the Gubmit employee. It plain and very simple terms, this is tyranny.

I want to see a full blown investigation to make sure that the facts are sound but if people or individuals in the gubmit are found guilty of mis-using the IRS and its resources to target the Tea Party or anyone else, those groups\people should face fines, loss of employment and possibly jail time if the crimes are sever enough to warrant jail time.

Tyranny has no place in a democracy. Neither does corruption. Unfortunately, both are rampant in our Gubmit but when we find either, we need to investigate and eliminate both.

 

[ivwshane]

Of all the scandals that have rocked this administration, the IRS scandal is the one that makes me the angriest. I am a conservative but I would be just as angry if any Gubmit employee used their position to hinder or otherwise damage a political group or person because that group or person did not agree with the views of the Gubmit employee. It plain and very simple terms, this is tyranny.

I want to see a full blown investigation to make sure that the facts are sound but if people or individuals in the gubmit are found guilty of mis-using the IRS and its resources to target the Tea Party or anyone else, those groups\people should face fines, loss of employment and possibly jail time if the crimes are sever enough to warrant jail time.

Tyranny has no place in a democracy. Neither does corruption. Unfortunately, both are rampant in our Gubmit but when we find either, we need to investigate and eliminate both.

Go back to watching Fox News you fucking idiot! If you aren't going to bother educating yourself on the issue or at least following the thread then get the fuck out, no one cares what the ignorant have to say.

 

[Bowfinger]

The IRS tracks well over a million not-for-profits and charities. Attempting to make this a budget issue is laughably weak sauce considering there were certainly no more than three hundred 501(c)(4) applications from conservative groups in the almost three years this was going on.

Doubling down on your lies, I see. The 297 applications targeted for additional scrutiny were not just conservative groups. There is also absolutely zero evidence that all conservative groups were targeted. No matter how much you need to fuel your persecution complex, all of the actual evidence to date shows the IRS was focused on groups that were likely to engage in excessive political activities, beyond what was allowed for 501(c)(4)s. Further, the evidence shows the IRS was targeting both right- and left-wing groups. Your lies don't magically become true just because you parrot them over and over.

 

[Bowfinger]

Has everything to do with the IRS repeatedly leaking confidential non-public information from multiple conservative groups and only conservative groups.

More dishonesty. That's not what you said. These are the words I responded to -- your words:

"Note specifically that one of those applications was Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, which as Bowfinger so helpfully pointed out could not have been picked up in the oh-so-innocent Tea Party BOLO. In fact, one is hard pressed to understand how ANY BOLO could pick up a group with such a name. If on the other hand the IRS was targeting all conservative groups' applications, then anything associated with Karl Rove is a natural choice."
​

It was a stupid comment because the IRS did not pick Rove's group. ProPublica did, rendering baseless your innuendo about the IRS targeting all conservatives. You continue to invent propaganda to support your preconceived conclusions.

 

[Bowfinger]

Wow, corruption is now defined as not supporting the IRS adopting different rules for different political allegiances. We've come full circle.

And still more lies. Your butt must resemble a clown car. The lies just keep piling out, seemingly endlessly. I wonder if vBulletin can be configured to play calliope music whenever one reads your posts.

My comment about corruption was part of a side discussion about anonymity in political spending. It had zero to do with either "political allegiances" or the IRS targeting. You response above is your usual empty BS.

 

[Bowfinger]

No goal post shifting at all. Contributing to social welfare organizations should be anonymous, and a lot of things can fall under "social welfare".

Really? So if I print flyers I need to disclose that somewhere? If I buy a megaphone somewhere I need to disclose that somewhere? Why? Why should political speech specifically be singled out to not be anonymous, while other speech can be?

Why use some arbitrary amount? It should not be tracked at all.

It is our government. Money corrupts it. In an ideal world, we would prohibit that corrupting influence entirely. Until we get a less corrupt court, unfortunately, the best we can hope for is transparency. We, the People, have every right to know who is corrupting our government.

You approve of organizations that use their influence to support causes you agree with, and you don't approve of those who want to use their money to support things you disagree with so you seek to remove anonymity so they can be appropriately punished into towing the politically correct line. Influence is influence.

Don't go all Wereweasel on us. That's complete nonsense. I said not a single word suggesting disclosure should be selective based on ideology. I want political influence spending disclosed, with a possible pragmatic exception for small amounts that are individually immaterial.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Applying scrutiny to one group based on political affiliation is an affront to freedom.

Absolutely agree.

All those who participated in such activity should be in jail.

The FBI will make that determination. I expect they will refer for prosecution any criminal behavior found.

 

[Bowfinger]

I just saw that Issa has now subpoenaed Holder: http://washingtonexaminer.com/house...-eric-holder-over-irs-scandal/article/2548677

Note that it's the Washington Examiner, so there's no guarantee their story is accurate. It seems simple and clear-cut enough that they should be able to get it right, however.

 

[Fern]

It is our government. Money corrupts it.
-snip-

Nah. Power is what corrupts it.

The money just follows the power.

There's a reason this well known phrase uses the word "power":

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Fern

 

[Fern]

Doubling down on your lies, I see. The 297 applications targeted for additional scrutiny were not just conservative groups. There is also absolutely zero evidence that all conservative groups were targeted. No matter how much you need to fuel your persecution complex, all of the actual evidence to date shows the IRS was focused on groups that were likely to engage in excessive political activities, beyond what was allowed for 501(c)(4)s. Further, the evidence shows the IRS was targeting both right- and left-wing groups. Your lies don't magically become true just because you parrot them over and over.

Jay Carney is that you?

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Nah. Power is what corrupts it.

The money just follows the power.

There's a reason this well known phrase uses the word "power":

Fern

The Bible begs to differ: "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Or perhaps this is a complex issue that can't be dismissed with simplistic sound bites.

Jay Carney is that you?

Fern

Do you have anything substantive to contribute to this thread, or are you just going to troll? What part of what I said was inaccurate? Be specific, using real facts, not Fox facts. (No, I'm not holding my breath.)

 

[debian0001]

is this still exploding? like diarrhoea?

 

[Jhhnn]

Doubling down on your lies, I see. The 297 applications targeted for additional scrutiny were not just conservative groups. There is also absolutely zero evidence that all conservative groups were targeted. No matter how much you need to fuel your persecution complex, all of the actual evidence to date shows the IRS was focused on groups that were likely to engage in excessive political activities, beyond what was allowed for 501(c)(4)s. Further, the evidence shows the IRS was targeting both right- and left-wing groups. Your lies don't magically become true just because you parrot them over and over.

Jay Carney is that you?

Fern

I notice you didn't question the veracity of the statement but rather tried to slime it.

Is that all you've got?

I think so, and I think that pretty much sums up the entire witch hunt- puffed up emptiness.

 

[Cozarkian]

Regardless, the federal government requires trucking companies to make a purchase from a third party that has absolutely nothing to do with their shipping transaction. If anything, that's even more onerous than requiring a transaction that two parties agree to to have certain stipulations.

There is a massive, massive difference between the following:

1. If you choose to participate in interstate commerce by establishing a trucking company, you are required to purchase insurance to protect potential victims who are endangered by your activities, and

2. If you are born you are required to buy insurance to protect yourself.

If we are going to allow the latter, why not have government-mandated meals and exercise? Or how about a fax tax if you don't exercise sufficiently to stay within healthy weight estimates?

 

[ivwshane]

There is a massive, massive difference between the following:

1. If you choose to participate in interstate commerce by establishing a trucking company, you are required to purchase insurance to protect potential victims who are endangered by your activities, and

2. If you are born you are required to buy insurance to protect yourself.

If we are going to allow the latter, why not have government-mandated meals and exercise? Or how about a fax tax if you don't exercise sufficiently to stay within healthy weight estimates?

I'd be all for that! Do you know how much fat people cost us a year? I don't know but I'm sure it's a lot.

Of course that's an unamerican thing to do, the American thing to do would be to tax things we don't like (like cigarettes) or indirectly ban things we don't like (see republican policies on stopping abortions).

 

[JEDIYoda]

hahahaha nothing exploded....rofl....