IRS targeting of conservative groups

The IRS required that Jewish organization to state “whether [it]
supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also demanded the
organization “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land
of Israel.”

“When it comes to political speech, it’s sacrosanct. Our founding
fathers meant for it to be sacrosanct,” Scarborough said, going on the
lambaste the IRS. “Liberal and conservative Supreme Courts alike do not
allow the government to tread on political speech. There is a wall
around that, and the wall has been knocked down by the IRS for several
years now.

Freedom Forever wrote:The word impeach is being thrown around.

Freedom Forever wrote:The word impeach is being thrown around.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:The word impeach is being thrown around.

That would be a little strange. I think "fired" or "asked to resign" is the term. They'll probably be offered a better job in the private sector anyway.
(you do know that Bush is an ex-president, don't you?)

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:The word impeach is being thrown around.

That would be a little strange. I think "fired" or "asked to resign" is the term. They'll probably be offered a better job in the private sector anyway.
(you do know that Bush is an ex-president, don't you?)

Huh?

You "fire" a president by impeaching and convicting him. Impeachment was meant as a political means to remove a president or judge by the legislative branch.

Any request for resignation will have to come from the Democrats but that would only occur with an inevitability of impeachment and conviction. See "Resignation of Richard Nixon". Can't see Dirt Bag Harry going to the WH to ask for OohBamama's washroom key.

Probably not. Nixon was just about broke at one time. He eventually rehabilitated his reputation enough that he was able to hit the lecture circuit and pen his memoirs. Of course with Obama's connections in Krooked Chicago, he could be feted like a conquering hero. Lots of work there for creative crooks.

nightlight88 wrote:<<<< I do think that due to the publicity on this, the Obama administration as well as congress will install some reforms to prevent future similar incidents. >>>>>


There ya go, a great solution, hire more incompetent government workers.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:<<<< I do think that due to the publicity on this, the Obama administration as well as congress will install some reforms to prevent future similar incidents. >>>>>


There ya go, a great solution, hire more incompetent government workers.

Who said anything about more hiring?
Since you brought it up though, do you think government workers should be paid more, to attract those more competent?

Here is the truth behind these numbers:

First, the pay agent doesn’t consider fringe benefits, even though benefits for federal workers are famously generous. In addition to a 401(k)-type pension with a handsome employer match, federal workers receive a traditional defined-benefit pension — for which they contribute less than 1 percent of salary — as well as retiree health coverage. A Congressional Budget Office study published in January found that the federal retirement package was 2.7 times more generous than what is paid by large private-sector firms. Federal workers also receive more paid vacation and sick days. Even if they endured a salary penalty of 35 percent, their benefits would make up much of the difference.

But federal salaries are not 35 percent below private-sector levels. All five outside studies reviewed this year by the Government Accountability Office found that federal pay is equal to or higher than those of comparable private-sector workers. This is consistent with three decades of academic research. According to our analysis of Census Bureau data last year, the typical private-sector worker who shifts to a federal job receives a salary increase, while federal workers who leave for the private sector tend to get a salary cut.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:The word impeach is being thrown around.

That would be a little strange. I think "fired" or "asked to resign" is the term. They'll probably be offered a better job in the private sector anyway.
(you do know that Bush is an ex-president, don't you?)

Huh?

You "fire" a president by impeaching and convicting him. Impeachment was meant as a political means to remove a president or judge by the legislative branch.

Any request for resignation will have to come from the Democrats but that would only occur with an inevitability of impeachment and conviction. See "Resignation of Richard Nixon". Can't see Dirt Bag Harry going to the WH to ask for OohBamama's washroom key.

Probably not. Nixon was just about broke at one time. He eventually rehabilitated his reputation enough that he was able to hit the lecture circuit and pen his memoirs. Of course with Obama's connections in Krooked Chicago, he could be feted like a conquering hero. Lots of work there for creative crooks.

Obvious misunderstanding here. I was referring to the IRS employees who will be "fired" or asked to "resign". They (those employees who are not eligible for retirement) will probably find more lucrative jobs in the private sector anyway.
The reference to ex-president Bush is due to his appointee being in charge at the time. I doubt anything will come of that.
There was a congressional inquiry of similar indiscretion/targeting of a "progressive" entity several years ago. That was basically ignored. I do think that due to the publicity on this, the Obama administration as well as congress will install some reforms to prevent future similar incidents.

Freedom Forever wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

More stuff Oboo boo didn't know about;



Time to attack Fox News, again