the irs allegedly did the equivalent of targeting sporty red cars for speeding tickets

[unblock]

it's common knowledge that, statistically speaking, cops don't enforce speeding tickets uniformly. consciously or not, they disproportionately target red cars, sports cars, black drivers, and out-of-state plates.

in the case of the irs, tea party groups are accusing them of pulling them over for speeding while driving sporty red cars. or filing for tax-exempt status with a name that screams political partisanship.

the key point here is that, while the irs (and the cops) certainly, in general, ought to enforce the law uniformly, the accusation does not deny that the "victims" were in fact not complying with the law. "everybody speeds", yet red car drivers complain that they are pulled over disproportionately. but they don't claim that they weren't speeding. they deserved a ticket, their complaint really is simply that everyone else speeding deserved one as well.

[madokie]

1. This might be true

In the IRS's case I think that possibly the bushco plant, Douglas Shulman, did this on purpose to try to flame the POTUS with mostly during the run up to the last election. I personally don't think it has any bearing on this President, rather on the republicon party as a whole in their attempt to put one of theirs in the white house to do their bidding. The reporting on this shows the allegiance of our so called free press who by design are supposed to be non partisan. Its obvious they align with the pubies

[zbdent]

5. Well, he did resign RIGHT after the election,

even though he only had until sometime in the next few weeks left in his term (5 year term; started in 2008).

Knew that serving out the last few months of his term would have him sitting right in the middle of the "scandal". And some uncomfortable questions about his association with George W. Bush ...

[Buzz Clik]

2. The data do not back up you claim:

the key point here is that, while the irs (and the cops) certainly, in general, ought to enforce the law uniformly, the accusation does not deny that the "victims" were in fact not complying with the law.

The targeted groups were all denied tax exempt status? They most certainly were not. Very, very few were denied.

[unblock]

7. i can see how my wording was unclear. i meant to emphasize the "does not deny" part.

the point i was intending to make was that an accusation of unfair scrutiny is not a denial of wrongdoing.

i happen to think that a lot of these groups are in fact violating the tax code, but i can certainly see that the irs wouldn't have a basis to deny pre-certification based solely on the filing organization's applications and assertions as to their mission, etc.

however, i merely meant to note that they're not going around saying they're squeaky clean and legit, they're only saying they're getting unfair scrutiny.

[grok]

3. I think "Profiling" is a better analogy.

Very few, if any "tea party" groups actually were denied or "ticketed". More like intimidated.

More like tailing a sports car for miles to see if it speeds, but letting the driver know it is being watched.

Or tailing a man "of the WRONG color* in the "WRONG neighborhood" hoping he will break a traffic law, have a broken tail light, or make a nervous mistake so you have the right to pull him over. Because you KNOW he is "up to no good"

The IRS has interesting powers where for all practical purposes, you have to PROVE your innocence to them, not the other way around. This power might actually be considered necessary in order to insure mostly widespread compliance/payment since there is not enough manpower to audit everybody.

It appears that the IRS personnel seems to adapt to "please" whatever administration is in power. And since, by design, there is not that much oversight it can.be reckless.

Whatever powers that be creates that climate the IRS operates in. Not necessarily of corruption.

[Gman]

4. Silly me. I thought the Tea Party nonprofits

were feeding starving children in Africa with the money they raise. I mean, it's the charitable teabagger issue advocacy non-profits that got targeted. Isn't it? Gee I'm naive!

[hughee99]

6. Lets say I'm the boss at some office

and I need to lay off 2 of my 10 workers. At the end of the day, I go out to the parking lot and look at their cars. I decide to lay off the 2 with red cars, or the highest plate numbers, or parked furthest from the front door. What's the big deal? I have to lay off 2 workers anyway, it's what I'm supposed to do.

Now let's say I lay off the 2 workers with the Obama/Biden '08 bumper sticker on their car. Do you feel that is any different?

[unblock]

8. in that case, it's unfair (not to mention bad business), but perfectly legal.

moreover, if the victims then go around complaining that they were fired because of red cards or whatever, that doesn't deny that they were under-performers.

usually when one objects to unfair treatment, they claim not only that the treatment was unfair, but also unwarranted. e.g., claiming that they were fired because of red cars AND that they never received any negative performance reviews.

[hughee99]

9. If I had 10 workers and had to lay off 2 of them

and NONE of them had any negative performance reviews, any of them could make this claim. In my example, I was viewing all 10 of my workers as equal, and basing my decision on something other than performance.

In any case, my point was that many people see singling people out for seemingly arbitrary reasons (car color) differently than doing the same political leanings.