Welcome to Thunderdome

Troy wrote:What's the current tax exemption per year we are footing for religious groups? The groups that are essentially the driving force behind defunding basic reproductive healthcare for women.

I can't find exact figures - maybe $70-80 billion?

I'm seeing $500m for planned parenthood within the US(that won't last). $600m just removed for reproductive healthcare worldwide. It's maddening to me - super important that these children are born - but after that, fuck em. If they are unfortunate enough to live in Trump's "inner city nightmares" or have to go to one of Besty DeVos' future public schools where they can major in bear hunting - them's the breaks kid. Bootstrap harder.

e: I watched the PC today, Spicer did do much better.

I have never understood the argument that anyone is footing a bill for taxes not collected. It's not as though the federal government is living within its means and can't spend money they don't have. If anyone is getting the bill footed for them, it's the poor. They are costing tax payers actual money. To say that anyone is footing the bill for taxes the churches are not paying is to presuppose that wealth belongs to the government to begin with.

All that being said, I believe that churches should be taxed for anything they do that is not a direct charitable giving. All the "community centers" being built should be taxed. The food pantries for the poor, not. In exchange, I think the government should be out completely of the church's dealings. They get to endorse and even campaign for candidates that are aligned with their beliefs if they so choose. Personally, I don't think the government would take that trade off. I suspect the churches would become a hell of a lot more fiscally conservative if they were paying taxes as well.

Vince wrote: I have never understood the argument that anyone is footing a bill for taxes not collected. It's not as though the federal government is living within its means and can't spend money they don't have. If anyone is getting the bill footed for them, it's the poor. They are costing tax payers actual money. To say that anyone is footing the bill for taxes the churches are not paying is to presuppose that wealth belongs to the government to begin with.

I like the second part here, but I don't understand your position on the first.

So say I live in a town with a big church. Church has a lot of land, the full 5 acres, a few parsonages, Sunday school bldg, ball park, etc. They don't pay property taxes on any of those. If they were any other business, they would, and help fund the towns police, fire, EMT, lots more. But they don't. That town still has to (I think) offer those services to church buildings and property. Good thing those dirty poor people are getting the bill footed for them, or they'd have to pay their share AND the church's share.

Instead it's just, me, Joe-non-churchgoer, that has to foot the bill for both the poor and the church. The non-poors that go to the church probably help pay it through their property taxes, but they should. But why am I paying?? Meanwhile all I want is that my government offer some basic female reproductive services(3% abortions) so the burden of the poor doesn't increase, and hoping more people don't find out how easy it is to become a church!

You kind of seem to have an axe to grind re: "the dirty poor."

Yes, I know you're saying it ironically, possibly because you have a bias against people who want... I don't know... smaller government? Because in your view, they don't care about "the dirty poor."

Is that close?

GORDON wrote:You kind of seem to have an axe to grind re: "the dirty poor."

Yes, I know you're saying it ironically, possibly because you have a bias against people who want... I don't know... smaller government? Because in your view, they don't care about "the dirty poor."

Is that close?

It was an ironical response to

If anyone is getting the bill footed for them, it's the poor.

I added dirty because it felt right, alienating. I'd feel better if we had a generic name we could use for everyone benefiting from entitlement programs. The poors, bankers, soldiers, elderly, farmers.

Troy wrote: So say I live in a town with a big church. Church has a lot of land, the full 5 acres, a few parsonages, Sunday school bldg, ball park, etc. They don't pay property taxes on any of those. If they were any other business, they would, and help fund the towns police, fire, EMT, lots more. But they don't. That town still has to (I think) offer those services to church buildings and property. Good thing those dirty poor people are getting the bill footed for them, or they'd have to pay their share AND the church's share.

Instead it's just, me, Joe-non-churchgoer, that has to foot the bill for both the poor and the church. The non-poors that go to the church probably help pay it through their property taxes, but they should. But why am I paying?? Meanwhile all I want is that my government offer some basic female reproductive services(3% abortions) so the burden of the poor doesn't increase, and hoping more people don't find out how easy it is to become a church!

So churches (or rather those that attend them) should not have a position on the federal government funding abortions in other countries because firefighters?

Exactly.

Troy wrote: I added dirty because it felt right, alienating. I'd feel better if we had a generic name we could use for everyone benefiting from entitlement programs. The poors, bankers, soldiers, elderly, farmers.

I see your point.

Not sure why you think soldiers are freeloaders, though. They do one of the few federal jobs actually allowed specifically in the Constitution, and they sure as hell don't get paid enough for the shitty job they do.

GORDON wrote:

Troy wrote: I added dirty because it felt right, alienating. I'd feel better if we had a generic name we could use for everyone benefiting from entitlement programs. The poors, bankers, soldiers, elderly, farmers.

I see your point.

Not sure why you think soldiers are freeloaders, though. They do one of the few federal jobs actually allowed specifically in the Constitution, and they sure as hell don't get paid enough for the shitty job they do.

I DO NOT think they are freeloaders. Just benefit from entitlement programs. Of all the people on the list I'd say they deserve their government benefits the most. But it's still an entitlement program.

Troy wrote:Exactly.

Hmm... how about those aforementioned people that are poor and don't pay taxes? Do they get to have an opinion?

Those... poors... are not people.

Troy wrote:

GORDON wrote:

Troy wrote: I added dirty because it felt right, alienating. I'd feel better if we had a generic name we could use for everyone benefiting from entitlement programs. The poors, bankers, soldiers, elderly, farmers.

I see your point.

Not sure why you think soldiers are freeloaders, though. They do one of the few federal jobs actually allowed specifically in the Constitution, and they sure as hell don't get paid enough for the shitty job they do.

I DO NOT think they are freeloaders. Just benefit from entitlement programs. Of all the people on the list I'd say they deserve their government benefits the most. But it's still an entitlement program.

I disagree. It's part of the deal. They signed a 2-party contract knowing that if they are injured doing their duty, the VA is there to cover it.... even if it does a really shitty job of it. I don't think anyone would enlist without that protection. Nobody gets the VA without fulfilling their contract.

Well, as stated before I think churches should pay taxes if for no other reason than to get the boot of the government off their throats. But if we're going to limit the rights of people to have a voice in petitioning their government by their tax status, then a lot of nonprofits are going to cease having a function.

GORDON wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

GORDON wrote:What rights are they actually trying to strip from women? Just linkable things, not hearsay.

Serious question. All I've heard is paranoia so far.

There's a thread for that.

There have been no posts in this thread since Trump took office. I don't see how anything there can be relevant to the first Trump term.

Because Dipshit Drumpf campaigned on his pro-life/anti-abortion stance and has just cut off foreign aid to certain orgs that take a view on abortion to the left of Nixon.

Malcolm wrote:

GORDON wrote:

Malcolm wrote: There's a thread for that.

There have been no posts in this thread since Trump took office. I don't see how anything there can be relevant to the first Trump term.

Because Dipshit Drumpf campaigned on his pro-life/anti-abortion stance and has just cut off foreign aid to certain orgs that take a view on abortion to the left of Nixon.

Suddenly you believe campaign promises? And fuck foreign aid. I can see the argument against it. It isn't riot-worthy.

Vince wrote:then a lot of nonprofits are going to cease having a function.

Maybe it's been a long day but that sounds pretty good.

GORDON wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

GORDON wrote:
There have been no posts in this thread since Trump took office. I don't see how anything there can be relevant to the first Trump term.

Because Dipshit Drumpf campaigned on his pro-life/anti-abortion stance and has just cut off foreign aid to certain orgs that take a view on abortion to the left of Nixon.

Suddenly you believe campaign promises? And fuck foreign aid. I can see the argument against it. It isn't riot-worthy.

He appears to be following through based on his actions. If his domestic policy follows suit, then he's championing fucking the 4th amendment in the ass.

Malcolm wrote:

GORDON wrote:

Malcolm wrote: Because Dipshit Drumpf campaigned on his pro-life/anti-abortion stance and has just cut off foreign aid to certain orgs that take a view on abortion to the left of Nixon.

Suddenly you believe campaign promises? And fuck foreign aid. I can see the argument against it. It isn't riot-worthy.

He appears to be following through based on his actions. If his domestic policy follows suit, then he's championing fucking the 4th amendment in the ass.

Ok. Maybe we should wait until after the first day of his presidency to decide his presidency sucks and have a giant protest, though.

edit - I'm not saying it's not going to suck. I'm just saying the people whose minds are already decided... are idiots. I at least am trying to have an open mind, which is difficult because I'm not going to start believing the media now. EVERYONE IS LYING. They tried "fake news," and it backfired on them. Now they are trying "alternate facts." We'll see if that one sticks.

Maybe we should wait until after the first day of his presidency to decide his presidency sucks

No. He acted like a douche during the election, and it had nothing to do with the media coverage -- he invites the coverage with every asinine and bombastic bit of bullshit he spews. Why in the name of Jeebus would I believe he has the capacity to be anything but a douche during his term? Did Roberts swear him in on some kind of magic bible that tempers his personality down from "dumb-ass blowhard?"

Malcolm wrote:

Maybe we should wait until after the first day of his presidency to decide his presidency sucks

No. He acted like a douche during the election, and it had nothing to do with the media coverage -- he invites the coverage with every asinine and bombastic bit of bullshit he spews. Why in the name of Jeebus would I believe he has the capacity to be anything but a douche during his term? Did Roberts swear him in on some kind of magic bible that tempers his personality down from "dumb-ass blowhard?"

Dude you should have marched.

GORDON wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Maybe we should wait until after the first day of his presidency to decide his presidency sucks

No. He acted like a douche during the election, and it had nothing to do with the media coverage -- he invites the coverage with every asinine and bombastic bit of bullshit he spews. Why in the name of Jeebus would I believe he has the capacity to be anything but a douche during his term? Did Roberts swear him in on some kind of magic bible that tempers his personality down from "dumb-ass blowhard?"

Dude you should have marched.

Yeah, because I've got a spare couple grand burning a hole in my pocket that I want to waste on a trip to the sewer which is D.C.