Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have only heard this from one source, but according to the report, Schulman is a big (D) donor and supporter. If true, just because this person was appointed by an (R) does not mean that is where his personal loyalties are. If his moral and ethical compass have gone off the rails, then it is likely he would abuse his power in the favor of his political affiliation.
I have always wondered why the (R's) seem less likely to fight against ultra liberal SCOTUS and other federal judicial appointments like the (D's) do when it comes to conservatives. The same can be said for positions like the chief of the IRS. Certain presidents seem willing to reach across the political divide, where others are strict ideologues with their appointments.
I wouldn't say a "big" donor. The only donations on record were $500 in 2004 to democrats. I assume that was for Kerry but don't remember off the top of my head. I posted the link earlier.
But I don't really even see how any of that matters. Obama from day one has been basically saying his political opposition is nefarious and particularly those that cater to lobbying. He even inserted that sort of language in his SOU address.
So to recap the IRS supposedly put forth a policy that no one in charge approved of. Then when those in charge found out they changed the policy to try to be more fair. Then, in Jan. 2012 when political campaigning was fairly active, they ignored that "fairer" policy and went back to targeting conservative groups again.
And not just heavily targeting them. 100% of conservative activist with TEA Party, 9/12, etc. we're forwarded for review and some of those reviews had still not been processed even through two election cycles. The average time was 547 (or 543, can't remember off the top of me head) days.
So I'm not really sure why it even matters who appointed who and what they donate to. It doesn't change anything in the case as far as I'm concerned.
Uh-huh. The LAT is reporting Lena Turner is going to take the 5th in front of Congress. You don't do that for a "fake scandal".
I think you mean Lois Lerner.
She has been employed at various agencies for 34 years. She joined the IRS in 2001 and was appointed to her current post in 2006.
There are reports that Lois Lerner has been involved in inappropriate inquiries of religious organizations going back to the 80's when she was with the FEC. This obviously did not hurt her career.
Interestingly, Lois Lerner, Sarah Hall Ingram and Steven Miller/IRS have had long government careers/appointments across different presidential administrations.
Most of those involved in this mess are covered by federal-worker protections that have been in place for serious decades.
Stop rattling your chains, and get back to WORK !
There's nothing mysterious about tyranny and corruption in government. It's been part of the deal since the "New Deal" and the State of Emergency in 1933.
Did you think you were living in a "free" country?
Tyranny and corruption have been present since the beginning of time and most certainly not limited to any government. Insurance and tax fraud are indicative of the common man's corruption. Most seem to rationalize their behaviors.
They could have just formed a PAC but would have to turn over their donor list and didn't want their donors to be targeted by............well..............IRS!!
Big $ donors are more likely to donate when they can do so anonymously.
Political recipients of big $ donations prefer their donors remain anonymous.
Otherwise it's easier to see one hand washing the next.
When the IRS goes after one political group while ignoring the opposite political group, there is a very serious problem. I dont care who appointed the guy in charge. What I care about is what is happening.
We KNOW that Carney said, this was a result of increased applications. We also KNOW that was not the truth. Carney does not have the luxery of the benifit of the doubt. He has all the information. If he says something we take it at face value and validate that against the facts.
Carny LIED. Why did he lie? What is he covering up? That is the issue. The issue has nothing to do with who appointed the head of the IRS.
If you listened to the hearings and the statements by the two secretaries you would understand that this is a total lack of oversight and control, their answers were arrogant and lacking basic information from someone in their position. The republicans seems to think this is premeditated, but it appears to be just a lack of oversight and incompetent leaders, same as was the case in GSA.
This happens through both administrations although the current issue with the IRS is 2010-2012, we have congressional oversight committees that are siupposed to be the watchdogs of these agencies. Blame Obama for leaving Schulman and Miller in office, bad decsion as they are both incompetent but to insinuate that there is a conspiracy is lacking in facts.
I thought fiddlehead was a he at first too. I was corrected. I know what the IF means. It is just that my level needed from the left when it comes to admitting wrong is so low that what fiddlehead did say was worth notice and thanks. For a lefty that i have argued with on this site on many occasions to get fiddlehead to say what she said is a big deal. I have butted heads with her before. I dont expect a amen momment from anyone in the left on this site, a conditional appoligy is about the best we will ever see. It is a start and if we can get them to move a little to the middle or at lest a step closer than it is closer to aggreement than yesturday. She could have left her thread to die, or could have defended it to the last post. Instead she half accnowledged that IF the left did/does the same they should be going thru the same IRS magnify glass as the tea party groups were. Thats the closest she will come to ever saying her side was wrong. I am fine with that. I have realistic low level of expectations.
Fiddlehead is a he. I don't know where the other rumor started!
I have no problem admitting I am wrong. Sheesh, it happens daily.
In this case, I named the thread poorly, implying IRS was blameless and the Tea Party completely in the wrong. That was boneheaded. I was trying to make the point that these 501 c 4 groups seem very political to me, though I will admit that could cut both ways. Still, the unequal application of scrutiny is just plain wrong. I agree with that. You have to have a fair umpire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
