Obama Sacks The Head Of The IRS

"The misconduct uncovered is inexcusable," he said in a brief statement to reporters in the White House East Room. "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior at any agency, but especially the IRS."

"I am angry about it, Americans are angry about it — and they are right to be angry about it."

www.businessinsider.com...

Did not find that newspiece anywhere here. Thought it would be at least a bit more positive light besides the all Obama bashing recently happening in the forums, although probably for many it would seem just as a political move. At least the guy was fired.

I do not say Obama is not responsible for anything that happened, although I would not be surprised if he talked truth all along. It does not show incompetence, as it is impossible to micro-manage such a big country. I doubt even the leaders round here know what is happening downstairs, even though the population is 100 times smaller. He might have lied, although he might have not - we´ll probably never know for sure.

A few days ago I saw an Obama meme that reads something along the lines of

Thereis no problem that cant be solved
by pushing somebody under a bus.

Cant find it right now, so these will have to do...

"The guy" is just a scapegoat. The official in charge of the IRS unit where all the shenanigans happened is now the director of the IRS Obama-care unit. I wonder what she did to be catapulted into that important title?

And sure, Obama cannot be blamed for any of this.

Lets all ignore that it was Obama's political rivals that were targeted by the IRS.

Lets all ignore that the illegal information obtained by the IRS on Obama's political rivals was funneled directly to HIS CAMPAIGN OFFICE!

Nothing to see here, folks. Obama has taken care of it!

reply to post by METACOMET


I must agree. The guy that resigned wasn't even in charge when these probes were taking place. And this move, by Obama, is just a statement... "There, I did something".

However, I don't see how this makes Obama guilty of anything. Just because he fired the wrong guy doesn't mean he's responsible for the actions of the IRS. The investigation of this issue is ongoing. I don't think this is the end of the resignations.

reply to post by alfa1


Oh, goodie! Cartoons! Maybe we can work some intelligent discussion in between the childish drawings...

I agree that Obama probably didn't know about it. Its simply too politically risky for a sitting President to order things like this to be done.

Did he know about it? Maybe but probably not....odds are it was one someone else, working for Obama that did it.

Even Nixon didn't know about the Watergate break-in, his people were simply trying to get him the information.

Probably the same situation here.

Ask yourself what you would do if you were a President. Would you directly order someone to break the law? The reprecussions of that, if the person turns on you, would cost you your job. Better to give an overall directive with a wink and a smile and hope your people do what you think they will.

There was a part in one of Obama's campaign speeches when he told the crowd to do whatever it takes to help him get reelected. I can't seem to find that speech, but it was very strange to me when he said it. If anyone knows which speech I'm talking about please help me find it.

I think there are a lot people out there that did just that. Does voter fraud rig any bells?

Pladuim

Originally posted by Pladuim
There was a part in one of Obama's campaign speeches when he told the crowd to do whatever it takes to help him get reelected. I can't seem to find that speech, but it was very strange to me when he said it. If anyone knows which speech I'm talking about please help me find it.

I think there are a lot people out there that did just that. Does voter fraud rig any bells?

Pladuim

edit on 17-5-2013 by Pladuim because: (no reason given)

And that's what Presidents say. Its an overall directive that their people interpret. Did Obama know about the IRS thing directly?

I doubt it but I'm sure he wasn't upset about it. Nixon told his people to get him information about the democrats and they committed the Watergate break-in to do it.

Did Nixon know about it? Of course not but I'm sure he would have approved of it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
However, I don't see how this makes Obama guilty of anything. Just because he fired the wrong guy doesn't mean he's responsible for the actions of the IRS. The investigation of this issue is ongoing. I don't think this is the end of the resignations.

I own a bank, but I have a big problem.

There is a rival bank across the street that I must put out of business if I want my bank to prevail.

My employee runs across the street, robs the rival bank and, as a result, it goes out of business.

I prevail!

Coincidentally all of the stolen money found its way into my bank vault.

I cannot be held accountable for this! I PROMISE that I had nothing at all to do with it! For good measure I fired an employee that had nothing to do with it and promoted the robber to bank manager. No way am I guilty of anything.

Cui Bono?

reply to post by METACOMET


Do you have any proof that the IRS took money from these organizations? It was just a targeted investigation, not a robbery.

Do you have any proof that ANY of the money meant to go toward these organizations ended up in Obama's coffers? How many people who were going to donate to the Tea Party would change their minds and support Obama instead?

I'm sorry, but your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by METACOMET

 

Do you have any proof that the IRS took money from these organizations? It was just a targeted investigation, not a robbery.

Do you have any proof that ANY of the money meant to go toward these organizations ended up in Obama's coffers? How many people who were going to donate to the Tea Party would change their minds and support Obama instead?

I'm sorry, but your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Regardless of the money issue, you do need to attribute blame to Obama for this. He is there boss and undoubtably wouldn't have been against this.

Its really not a partisan issue, it was a very bad mistake and the sitting President needs to be held accountable.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


LOL

What my analogy was referring to was that the information illegally obtained by the IRS on Obama's rivals went straight to his re-election campaign so he could use that information to smear them.

Still think he didn't know anything about that? C'mon BH!

This whole scam isn't even really about the IRS bullying Obama's rivals using red tape. It's about the IRS illegally obtaining information, and then funneling that information to the President's re-election campaign.

But no way the President had anything to do with that! It was just his campaign manager underlings!

Sure....

reply to post by Hopechest


Oh, I agree. The buck stops with him. He is responsible for responding swiftly and accurately to what the IRS did. But I don't believe that he had knowledge of it. He is not dumb enough to sanction such action. He's not "behind" it, though ultimately responsible.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Oh, I agree. The buck stops with him. He is responsible for responding swiftly and accurately to what the IRS did. But I don't believe that he had knowledge of it. He is not dumb enough to sanction such action. He's not "behind" it, though ultimately responsible.

Yes I agree with you on that point.

I study presidents and can only think of one example where a President gave a direct order to commit something illegal and that was Polk telling the army to go instigate a war with Mexico.

Presidents do not directly order people to break the law as alliances in politics are always weak and the people could turn on them at any time and destroy their legacy.

reply to post by Cabin

At least a guy was fired.

No he wasn't. He was asked to resign two weeks before he was scheduled to resign on June 1st.

Obama effectively did nothing whatsoever, it was all for show.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cabin

 

At least a guy was fired.

No he wasn't. He was asked to resign two weeks before he was scheduled to resign on June 1st.

Obama effectively did nothing whatsoever, it was all for show.

The whole presidency is about show though.

It was good he did it. The President needs to "show" he is on top of the situation so who cares if they guy was going to retire anyways.

People need to see the President taking action and he did.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He is not dumb enough to sanction such action.

That remains to be seen.

We deserve the truth, but we all know that is hard to come by in D.C.

What about the four State Department and CIA officials that were warned by "unnamed Obama administration officials" about testifying on the Benghazi terror attacks?

Will the same thing happen with the IRS scandal? Methinks yes. But the President will, again, claim he knows absolutely nothing about that. Just more rogue underlings!

reply to post by Hopechest


What "action"??? Giving some guy an extra two weeks vacation before his pension kicks in?? You're kidding right?

All the while, the woman in charge of the Tax Exempts at the time this tyranny happened has been made the person in charge of the IRS's enforcement of Obamacare.

He didn't do ANYTHING other than feign outrage and action.

So he sacked the wrong person?

Can't believe it!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So he sacked the wrong person?

Can't believe it!

Again, he didn't sack anyone. Miller's tenure was up June 1 anyways.

And yes, the woman who was in charge of all tax exempt statuses was promoted to control Obamacare.