US government nears debt limit
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
In a "time of war", people are asked to make sacrifices. Soldiers make sacrifices every day. Why shouldn't the rest of us make sacrifices, in the form of higher taxes? Especially the richest 2% of us?
I thought Republicans were all about fiscal responsibility? This is absolutely rediculous! The only thing they're fiscally responsible for is whats in their own pockets. The most liberal president in the last 26 years was the most fiscally responsible. Go figure.
I thought Republicans were all about fiscal responsibility? This is absolutely rediculous! The only thing they're fiscally responsible for is whats in their own pockets. The most liberal president in the last 26 years was the most fiscally responsible. Go figure.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
I vote we sell Alaska back to the Reds.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
C'mon guys, if we keep cutting taxes, we'll eventually get it all back in revenue from growth. Didn't you know that it was supply-side economics that gave us our surpluses in 1999 and 2000? Reagan was a visionary, so much so that he martyred his own economic legacy for our betterment.
But, of course, this is the same government who wants to ignore the fact that real wages have remained stagnant over the past 16 years (at the least), while the cost of goods has increased dramatically in that time, and urge Americans to save more!
We resemble the government, and the government resembles us. Remember, while *we* are appalled by this level of spending (keep in mind that Bush's deficits from 2001-2005 handily beat all 8 years of Reagan's egregious expenditures), *we* are the same populace who decided that $300 checks were an awesome idea instead of owning up to our collective responsibility and paying off the debt.
My great-grandchildren will die of old age before a penny of this bullshit is paid off.
Of course, we could tax the
out of church if we were smart. Tell me that, bare minimum, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have long-ago forfeited their right to be tax-exempt.
But, of course, this is the same government who wants to ignore the fact that real wages have remained stagnant over the past 16 years (at the least), while the cost of goods has increased dramatically in that time, and urge Americans to save more!
We resemble the government, and the government resembles us. Remember, while *we* are appalled by this level of spending (keep in mind that Bush's deficits from 2001-2005 handily beat all 8 years of Reagan's egregious expenditures), *we* are the same populace who decided that $300 checks were an awesome idea instead of owning up to our collective responsibility and paying off the debt.
My great-grandchildren will die of old age before a penny of this bullshit is paid off.
Of course, we could tax the
out of church if we were smart. Tell me that, bare minimum, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have long-ago forfeited their right to be tax-exempt.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I think we should tax some churches. I'm not sure what you'd devise to decide who pays and who doesn't, but it should be based on the ability the church has to pay. If you're a local church that can barely afford to pay the priest and the building is run down due to lack of funds, then no, you won't be taxed. If you just bought new flat screen LCD tv's because the people are so far back that the preacher looks like an ant, then you pay taxes like any business.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think we should tax some churches. I'm not sure what you'd devise to decide who pays and who doesn't, but it should be based on the ability the church has to pay. If you're a local church that can barely afford to pay the priest and the building is run down due to lack of funds, then no, you won't be taxed. If you just bought new flat screen LCD tv's because the people are so far back that the preacher looks like an ant, then you pay taxes like any business.[/QUOTE]
Kinda like how I think we should tax people, based on income (as one measure). That wasn't so hard.
Kinda like how I think we should tax people, based on income (as one measure). That wasn't so hard.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think we should tax some churches. I'm not sure what you'd devise to decide who pays and who doesn't, but it should be based on the ability the church has to pay.[/quote]
Wouldn't it just make more sense to tax churches on the property they own? The one right behind my parents house has been sitting on 10 acres of undeveloped prime land as it slowly goes up in value every year, yet they've never had to pay a cent in tax on any of it.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to tax churches on the property they own? The one right behind my parents house has been sitting on 10 acres of undeveloped prime land as it slowly goes up in value every year, yet they've never had to pay a cent in tax on any of it.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Kinda like how I think we should tax people, based on income (as one measure). That wasn't so hard.[/quote]
Well, income isn't everything. That's especially true with organizations like the catholic church. Even with scandals and lawsuits that are their own doing, I think that needs to be taken into account. Basically I think taxes should be done with as little harm as possible. The ones with excess money are the ones who should get taxed. The issue, for me, is how to tell what spending is necessary and what isn't. Sure there are extremes on both side (the examples I mentioned earlier), but it gets difficult in the middle.
It depends on what the land is there for. I've heard of a few cases where the land is for wildlife. But, if it's just sitting there, and isn't of any benefit other than to the churches wallet, then I agree. Pay taxes or sell it.
Well, income isn't everything. That's especially true with organizations like the catholic church. Even with scandals and lawsuits that are their own doing, I think that needs to be taken into account. Basically I think taxes should be done with as little harm as possible. The ones with excess money are the ones who should get taxed. The issue, for me, is how to tell what spending is necessary and what isn't. Sure there are extremes on both side (the examples I mentioned earlier), but it gets difficult in the middle.
It depends on what the land is there for. I've heard of a few cases where the land is for wildlife. But, if it's just sitting there, and isn't of any benefit other than to the churches wallet, then I agree. Pay taxes or sell it.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']I thought they raised (Or were trying to) it last year.[/QUOTE]
They did raise it, by roughly a half-trillion dollars. They're now at the limit AGAIN. That's just how fast they're flushing America's future down the drain.
This, despite the fact that they're playing games with the budget. Just look at this story, for example: The 2007 budget bill assumes $7B in income from ANWR drilling. 3 problems with that:
1) ANWR drilling isn't necessarily going to happen - its been blocked for years.
2) Even if a bill passes that permits drilling, there isn't going to be income from it for years. The oil companies don't have to pay until they start making money from the deal, which isn't going to happen in 2007 unless its somehow possible to set up a full-scale drilling process in
They did raise it, by roughly a half-trillion dollars. They're now at the limit AGAIN. That's just how fast they're flushing America's future down the drain.
This, despite the fact that they're playing games with the budget. Just look at this story, for example: The 2007 budget bill assumes $7B in income from ANWR drilling. 3 problems with that:
1) ANWR drilling isn't necessarily going to happen - its been blocked for years.
2) Even if a bill passes that permits drilling, there isn't going to be income from it for years. The oil companies don't have to pay until they start making money from the deal, which isn't going to happen in 2007 unless its somehow possible to set up a full-scale drilling process in
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's an issue like this where you can spot a true conservative from a neocon.[/QUOTE]
And, subsequently, the severe dearth of the former and overabundance of the latter in Congress.
And, subsequently, the severe dearth of the former and overabundance of the latter in Congress.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
The way the Republican Congress has abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility is damn disgusting.
You will get no inkling of support for me on this issue or disagreement with the sentiments posted already.
We should never have passed a prescription drug benefit. However raising income tax rates isn't the solution to this issue.
If this war is indeed a war the way it's been presented what's wrong with floating War Bonds? Why shouldn't those who truly support this issue and cause specifically contribute to its operation? It's not like government bonds aren't solid investments and it gives institutional investors and supportive citizens a way of voting with their dollars.
A $2.7 trillion Federal budget is an abomination and I'm embarassed to say it's Republicans that did it. However every attempt to cut even $50 billion out of the budget is met with howls of protest from Democrats. When the drug benefit was proposed, Democrats wanted more.
Bottom line is both political parties are stuffed with professional politicians more interested in their power than the welfare of the country. When you're one of 100 people with a say in how $2,700,000,000,000 is spent you really have more power than you truly deserve. Per capita that's $27,000,000,000 for every Senator.
That puts their ability to spend on an individual basis at a higher level than even Bill Gates. Think about that, each U.S. Senator has more fiscal resources to expend on an annual basis than Bill Gates.
This issue goes beyond parties, this is a systematic problem and an American problem.
You will get no inkling of support for me on this issue or disagreement with the sentiments posted already.
We should never have passed a prescription drug benefit. However raising income tax rates isn't the solution to this issue.
If this war is indeed a war the way it's been presented what's wrong with floating War Bonds? Why shouldn't those who truly support this issue and cause specifically contribute to its operation? It's not like government bonds aren't solid investments and it gives institutional investors and supportive citizens a way of voting with their dollars.
A $2.7 trillion Federal budget is an abomination and I'm embarassed to say it's Republicans that did it. However every attempt to cut even $50 billion out of the budget is met with howls of protest from Democrats. When the drug benefit was proposed, Democrats wanted more.
Bottom line is both political parties are stuffed with professional politicians more interested in their power than the welfare of the country. When you're one of 100 people with a say in how $2,700,000,000,000 is spent you really have more power than you truly deserve. Per capita that's $27,000,000,000 for every Senator.
That puts their ability to spend on an individual basis at a higher level than even Bill Gates. Think about that, each U.S. Senator has more fiscal resources to expend on an annual basis than Bill Gates.
This issue goes beyond parties, this is a systematic problem and an American problem.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This issue goes beyond parties, this is a systematic problem and an American problem.[/QUOTE]
No. Not really. You can safely blame the vast vast majority of this on Bush and Republicans.
Arent you glad you have supported them so fiercely PUD?
No. Not really. You can safely blame the vast vast majority of this on Bush and Republicans.
Arent you glad you have supported them so fiercely PUD?
[quote name='Msut77']No. Not really. You can safely blame the vast vast majority of this on Bush and Republicans.
Arent you glad you have supported them so fiercely PUD?[/QUOTE]
Normally I'd consider something like this to be a bipartisan problem. But, the Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court. They control absolutely everything. If something is happening or not happening, its because of the Republicans.
Arent you glad you have supported them so fiercely PUD?[/QUOTE]
Normally I'd consider something like this to be a bipartisan problem. But, the Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court. They control absolutely everything. If something is happening or not happening, its because of the Republicans.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If this war is indeed a war the way it's been presented what's wrong with floating War Bonds? Why shouldn't those who truly support this issue and cause specifically contribute to its operation? It's not like government bonds aren't solid investments and it gives institutional investors and supportive citizens a way of voting with their dollars.[/quote]
The war is already supported by bonds, they're just not specifically labeled 'war bonds'. When the government runs a deficit, where do you think the money comes from?
Regarding it being a solid investment: not anymore. Its getting harder and harder to sell US savings bonds. Bush has damaged our economy so badly that many investors simply don't feel secure in investing in our country anymore. Just last year a leading Japanese investment firm publicly suggested that Japanese investors look for other, more secure investments - they are, in the end, saying that they think there's a high risk of the US defaulting on its loans. Look at the price of gold lately? Its through the roof. The US used to be the secure investment. Not so much anymore, so those looking for safe investments are moving their money out of US Bonds and into gold.
This is why the US is being forced to sell more and more of its debt to China. This is not a good situation to be in. They control so much of our debt now, they essentially have the power to destroy us simply by selling.
What they wanted was the federal government to have the power to negotiate bulk discounts. That would have either dramatically reduced the cost of the program, or drastically increased its ability to take care of seniors (depending on how one would want to use the savings.) The program, as it exists now, it essentially just a give-away to the pharmaceutical industry, providing very little benefit for seniors for a ridiculous cost.
PAD, even when you claim to disagree with Bush, you still shill for him. The simple reality is that we're in a very bad situation here, one that we wouldn't be in if the Democrats controlled even one branch of the government. The amount of 'blame' that falls on the Democrats here is solely to the extent that they've failed to successfully fight the Republican political machine. Everything else - its entirely, completely, 100% the fault of the Republican party.
The war is already supported by bonds, they're just not specifically labeled 'war bonds'. When the government runs a deficit, where do you think the money comes from?
Regarding it being a solid investment: not anymore. Its getting harder and harder to sell US savings bonds. Bush has damaged our economy so badly that many investors simply don't feel secure in investing in our country anymore. Just last year a leading Japanese investment firm publicly suggested that Japanese investors look for other, more secure investments - they are, in the end, saying that they think there's a high risk of the US defaulting on its loans. Look at the price of gold lately? Its through the roof. The US used to be the secure investment. Not so much anymore, so those looking for safe investments are moving their money out of US Bonds and into gold.
This is why the US is being forced to sell more and more of its debt to China. This is not a good situation to be in. They control so much of our debt now, they essentially have the power to destroy us simply by selling.
What they wanted was the federal government to have the power to negotiate bulk discounts. That would have either dramatically reduced the cost of the program, or drastically increased its ability to take care of seniors (depending on how one would want to use the savings.) The program, as it exists now, it essentially just a give-away to the pharmaceutical industry, providing very little benefit for seniors for a ridiculous cost.
PAD, even when you claim to disagree with Bush, you still shill for him. The simple reality is that we're in a very bad situation here, one that we wouldn't be in if the Democrats controlled even one branch of the government. The amount of 'blame' that falls on the Democrats here is solely to the extent that they've failed to successfully fight the Republican political machine. Everything else - its entirely, completely, 100% the fault of the Republican party.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
Thought this article was interesting and relevant to the OP:
Concerns mount over higher rates on student loans
Monday, March 6, 2006
Washington -- The Republican-led Congress and President Bush are facing growing anger on college campuses as students and their parents prepare to pay higher borrowing costs because of new changes to federal student loan programs.
Congress narrowly passed a deficit-reduction bill last month that cut $12 billion from student loan programs, which was signed by the president. The new law will slash subsidies to lenders and raise interest rates on loans taken out by parents.
Lawmakers already had approved a steep increase in interest rates for Stafford loans, used by nearly 10 million students each year. Both rate increases take effect July 1.
The higher interest rates come as many students and parents are already struggling to cope with rising tuition costs. Department of Education figures suggest that at least 400,000 qualified students do not enroll in four-year colleges each year because of financial barriers.
The average debt of college graduates has jumped by 50 percent over the last decade, according to the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit advocacy group. But for the last several years, low interest rates have helped students cushion the blow and reduce their monthly payments.
Education policy experts said the new cuts in subsidies to lenders and changes to interest rates will result in greater borrowing costs for many students and parents.
Students with Stafford loans, the most common type of federal loan, who have locked in variable rates as low as 4.7 percent this year will face higher monthly payments when those loans shift to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent in July.
Mike Rau, whose 20-year-old daughter, Lisa, is a sophomore at San Francisco State University, is worried she will end up paying thousands of dollars more in interest on her Stafford loans.
"When she gets out of school and starts making payments, instead of it taking four years to pay off her loans it will take five or six years," said Rau, who is helping his daughter pay for college. "It saddles them with more debt for longer in their lives."
"It might have an impact on whether I go to grad school," she said. "If I don't have the money and I'm trying to pay off a lot of these loans and the interest rates are going up, that might be out of the question."
As part of the new bill, Congress also increased the interest rate on loans paid by parents. Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, better known as PLUS loans, had been scheduled to rise from the current rate of 6.1 percent to a fixed rate of 7.9 percent.
But lawmakers, seeking greater savings in the budget package, boosted the rate even higher, to 8.5 percent. The change is likely to make the loans less attractive to many parents.
"The question for parents is: Is it better to take out a PLUS loan or is it better to take out a home equity loan?" Baum said. "They need to look at all their options."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/06/MNGICHJ8391.DTL
Way to go. Pay for the Iraq war and tax cuts by penalizing college students. It's all part of Dubya's "dumbing down america" plan. you know, intelligent design, abstinence only, "no child left behind", ...
Concerns mount over higher rates on student loans
Monday, March 6, 2006
Washington -- The Republican-led Congress and President Bush are facing growing anger on college campuses as students and their parents prepare to pay higher borrowing costs because of new changes to federal student loan programs.
Congress narrowly passed a deficit-reduction bill last month that cut $12 billion from student loan programs, which was signed by the president. The new law will slash subsidies to lenders and raise interest rates on loans taken out by parents.
Lawmakers already had approved a steep increase in interest rates for Stafford loans, used by nearly 10 million students each year. Both rate increases take effect July 1.
The higher interest rates come as many students and parents are already struggling to cope with rising tuition costs. Department of Education figures suggest that at least 400,000 qualified students do not enroll in four-year colleges each year because of financial barriers.
The average debt of college graduates has jumped by 50 percent over the last decade, according to the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit advocacy group. But for the last several years, low interest rates have helped students cushion the blow and reduce their monthly payments.
Education policy experts said the new cuts in subsidies to lenders and changes to interest rates will result in greater borrowing costs for many students and parents.
Students with Stafford loans, the most common type of federal loan, who have locked in variable rates as low as 4.7 percent this year will face higher monthly payments when those loans shift to a fixed rate of 6.8 percent in July.
Mike Rau, whose 20-year-old daughter, Lisa, is a sophomore at San Francisco State University, is worried she will end up paying thousands of dollars more in interest on her Stafford loans.
"When she gets out of school and starts making payments, instead of it taking four years to pay off her loans it will take five or six years," said Rau, who is helping his daughter pay for college. "It saddles them with more debt for longer in their lives."
"It might have an impact on whether I go to grad school," she said. "If I don't have the money and I'm trying to pay off a lot of these loans and the interest rates are going up, that might be out of the question."
As part of the new bill, Congress also increased the interest rate on loans paid by parents. Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, better known as PLUS loans, had been scheduled to rise from the current rate of 6.1 percent to a fixed rate of 7.9 percent.
But lawmakers, seeking greater savings in the budget package, boosted the rate even higher, to 8.5 percent. The change is likely to make the loans less attractive to many parents.
"The question for parents is: Is it better to take out a PLUS loan or is it better to take out a home equity loan?" Baum said. "They need to look at all their options."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/06/MNGICHJ8391.DTL
Way to go. Pay for the Iraq war and tax cuts by penalizing college students. It's all part of Dubya's "dumbing down america" plan. you know, intelligent design, abstinence only, "no child left behind", ...
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='dafoomie']I thought Republicans were all about fiscal responsibility? This is absolutely rediculous![/QUOTE]
They were all for fiscal responsibility....when they were in the minority. Once in the majority, before long the Republicans forgot all about their balanced-budget amendments and cost-cutting rhetoric that got them to the majority in the first place, instead preferring to spread money around to buy reelection, just like the Democrats did for so long. I wonder if it will take 40 years for the Republicans to lose their majority...
They were all for fiscal responsibility....when they were in the minority. Once in the majority, before long the Republicans forgot all about their balanced-budget amendments and cost-cutting rhetoric that got them to the majority in the first place, instead preferring to spread money around to buy reelection, just like the Democrats did for so long. I wonder if it will take 40 years for the Republicans to lose their majority...
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think we should tax some churches. I'm not sure what you'd devise to decide who pays and who doesn't, but it should be based on the ability the church has to pay. If you're a local church that can barely afford to pay the priest and the building is run down due to lack of funds, then no, you won't be taxed. If you just bought new flat screen LCD tv's because the people are so far back that the preacher looks like an ant, then you pay taxes like any business.[/QUOTE]
I take exception to frontal assaults on the First Amendment like this one.
I take exception to frontal assaults on the First Amendment like this one.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Drocket']PAD, even when you claim to disagree with Bush, you still shill for him.[/QUOTE]
You're so god damning stupid you can't recognize a full political broadside attack when it's laid out right in front of you.
Just what does it feel like to have half a brain?
Could you try to articulate it for us?
You're so god damn
ing stupid you can't recognize a full political broadside attack when it's laid out right in front of you.Just what does it feel like to have half a brain?
Could you try to articulate it for us?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']I take exception to frontal assaults on the First Amendment like this one.[/quote]
What is the issue for you? I'm the one arguing for taxation of churches in a moderate form, where religious institutions would not be harmed. The others don't seem to be making such distinctions.
I think the issue is what is being cut. Priority spending is different for both parties, and therefore cutting funding is always likely to be an issue.
What is the issue for you? I'm the one arguing for taxation of churches in a moderate form, where religious institutions would not be harmed. The others don't seem to be making such distinctions.
I think the issue is what is being cut. Priority spending is different for both parties, and therefore cutting funding is always likely to be an issue.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
There's no doubt priority spending is different for both parties. Not the point.
However think about this in simple terms. $50 billion in cuts off a $2,700,000,000,000 budget is less than 2%. That's like you going to go grocery shopping with $100 and deciding you should only spend $98 so you can get change to do laundry. Are you going to starve? Are you going to face any kind of real dilema while walking the aisles picking up food, toiletries or produce? No, not really.
The problem, as I've said before, is with entitlements. If 65% of that total is already spent before any budget debate happens the remaining $900 billion, minus $500 billion for defense, is $400 billion. Doesn't leave you a lot of wiggle room to really debate does it?
It's always about tackling entitlements which no one ever wants to do. That's the great rub.
However think about this in simple terms. $50 billion in cuts off a $2,700,000,000,000 budget is less than 2%. That's like you going to go grocery shopping with $100 and deciding you should only spend $98 so you can get change to do laundry. Are you going to starve? Are you going to face any kind of real dilema while walking the aisles picking up food, toiletries or produce? No, not really.
The problem, as I've said before, is with entitlements. If 65% of that total is already spent before any budget debate happens the remaining $900 billion, minus $500 billion for defense, is $400 billion. Doesn't leave you a lot of wiggle room to really debate does it?
It's always about tackling entitlements which no one ever wants to do. That's the great rub.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']There's no doubt priority spending is different for both parties. Not the point.
However think about this in simple terms. $50 billion in cuts off a $2,700,000,000,000 budget is less than 2%. That's like you going to go grocery shopping with $100 and deciding you should only spend $98 so you can get change to do laundry. Are you going to starve? Are you going to face any kind of real dilema while walking the aisles picking up food, toiletries or produce? No, not really.
The problem, as I've said before, is with entitlements. If 65% of that total is already spent before any budget debate happens the remaining $900 billion, minus $500 billion for defense, is $400 billion. Doesn't leave you a lot of wiggle room to really debate does it?
It's always about tackling entitlements which no one ever wants to do. That's the great rub.[/quote]
But they don't seem to be taking bits and pieces across the board, social programs are often the ones taking the hits.
However think about this in simple terms. $50 billion in cuts off a $2,700,000,000,000 budget is less than 2%. That's like you going to go grocery shopping with $100 and deciding you should only spend $98 so you can get change to do laundry. Are you going to starve? Are you going to face any kind of real dilema while walking the aisles picking up food, toiletries or produce? No, not really.
The problem, as I've said before, is with entitlements. If 65% of that total is already spent before any budget debate happens the remaining $900 billion, minus $500 billion for defense, is $400 billion. Doesn't leave you a lot of wiggle room to really debate does it?
It's always about tackling entitlements which no one ever wants to do. That's the great rub.[/quote]
But they don't seem to be taking bits and pieces across the board, social programs are often the ones taking the hits.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
What else is there to trim?
The only areas left in $400 billion are education, highway money and social programs.
Like I said two thirds go to straight entitlements. $500 billion to defense. That leaves you $400 billion to play with and negotiate with. Of that 10-12% goes to highways. Now you're down to $360 billion. Figure another $100 billion in pure pork? $260 billion.
Now of that where are you going to get enough bits and pieces to put together $50 billion?
The only areas left in $400 billion are education, highway money and social programs.
Like I said two thirds go to straight entitlements. $500 billion to defense. That leaves you $400 billion to play with and negotiate with. Of that 10-12% goes to highways. Now you're down to $360 billion. Figure another $100 billion in pure pork? $260 billion.
Now of that where are you going to get enough bits and pieces to put together $50 billion?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
If you can't find an alternative then raise taxes and cut military spending. That second part isn't as easy as it should be, due to the current situation. But things such as nuclear research (there was talk about this a year or two ago, can't remember what happened to it) would be prime targets. Essentially cut military things that don't pertain to troop safety in a significant way.
They're working with restraints the democrats wouldn't have. Even if you put a democrat in power now (meaning they have to deal with Iraq), they would like move towards raising taxes before cutting social programs. Or at least cut less in social programs.
They're working with restraints the democrats wouldn't have. Even if you put a democrat in power now (meaning they have to deal with Iraq), they would like move towards raising taxes before cutting social programs. Or at least cut less in social programs.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
You can't raise taxes anymore.
Think about this. Top marginal rate is 38%. Average state income tax is 3%. SSI is 7.65% as an employee or 15.3% if you're self employed. Property taxes on homes is roughly $1,500 per $100,000 of market value and is not at all tied to income.
A family of 4 making $100,000 living in a $200,000 home (Which is about 1,800 sq feet here.) is in the 33% tax bracket. Their tax bill comes down to this; $33,000 in Federal taxes, say $27,000 after deductions, $6,961 in SSI (Taking into account that they hit the max cap on SSI around $91,000.), $3,000 in state income taxes and an additional $3,000 in local taxes.
Grand total?
$39,961
Tell me, why should these people pay more? Isn't that enough?
I didn't even include taxes on utility bills, an average 6% in sales tax, 43.5 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes, taxes on any kind of earned interest which probably add an additional $4,000 MINIMUM to that existing tax bill.
Why do we ask everyone but government to do with less?
Employers ask you to do more with less. Your family budget? You're always asked to do more with less. Why is government always the last group expected to do more with less?
Why do we need to be funding more when we get far less value for our money?
Do you think a family of 4 earning $100,000 sees $40,000 in value annually for their taxes?
Think about this. Top marginal rate is 38%. Average state income tax is 3%. SSI is 7.65% as an employee or 15.3% if you're self employed. Property taxes on homes is roughly $1,500 per $100,000 of market value and is not at all tied to income.
A family of 4 making $100,000 living in a $200,000 home (Which is about 1,800 sq feet here.) is in the 33% tax bracket. Their tax bill comes down to this; $33,000 in Federal taxes, say $27,000 after deductions, $6,961 in SSI (Taking into account that they hit the max cap on SSI around $91,000.), $3,000 in state income taxes and an additional $3,000 in local taxes.
Grand total?
$39,961
Tell me, why should these people pay more? Isn't that enough?
I didn't even include taxes on utility bills, an average 6% in sales tax, 43.5 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes, taxes on any kind of earned interest which probably add an additional $4,000 MINIMUM to that existing tax bill.
Why do we ask everyone but government to do with less?
Employers ask you to do more with less. Your family budget? You're always asked to do more with less. Why is government always the last group expected to do more with less?
Why do we need to be funding more when we get far less value for our money?
Do you think a family of 4 earning $100,000 sees $40,000 in value annually for their taxes?
Drocket
CAGiversary!
We could always stop doing things like pouring a half-trillion dollars down the rathole to fight an unnecessary war against countries that pose no threat to us based on false premises. That's always one possibility.
We could also stop giving multi-billion no-bid contracts to companies that have repeatedly screwed over our country, or stop giving billions in assistance to oil companies during periods in which they're recording record profits. Or we could permit the government to negotiate bulk-discounts on drug programs - that would save a billion or two and wouldn't affect service at all. We could also stop giving tax cuts to Paris Hilton.
Or we can do the usual and the poor.
We could also stop giving multi-billion no-bid contracts to companies that have repeatedly screwed over our country, or stop giving billions in assistance to oil companies during periods in which they're recording record profits. Or we could permit the government to negotiate bulk-discounts on drug programs - that would save a billion or two and wouldn't affect service at all. We could also stop giving tax cuts to Paris Hilton.
Or we can do the usual and
the poor.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Drocket']We could always stop doing things like pouring a half-trillion dollars down the rathole to fight an unnecessary war against countries that pose no threat to us based on false premises. That's always one possibility.
We could also stop giving multi-billion no-bid contracts to companies that have repeatedly screwed over our country, or stop giving billions in assistance to oil companies during periods in which they're recording record profits. Or we could permit the government to negotiate bulk-discounts on drug programs - that would save a billion or two and wouldn't affect service at all. We could also stop giving tax cuts to Paris Hilton.
Or we can do the usual and the poor.[/QUOTE]
Drocket, the proper place for your thoughts are right here. Unfortunately you really don't have facts on your side but that's normal for liberals.
We could also stop giving multi-billion no-bid contracts to companies that have repeatedly screwed over our country, or stop giving billions in assistance to oil companies during periods in which they're recording record profits. Or we could permit the government to negotiate bulk-discounts on drug programs - that would save a billion or two and wouldn't affect service at all. We could also stop giving tax cuts to Paris Hilton.
Or we can do the usual and
the poor.[/QUOTE]Drocket, the proper place for your thoughts are right here. Unfortunately you really don't have facts on your side but that's normal for liberals.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You can't raise taxes anymore.
Think about this. Top marginal rate is 38%. Average state income tax is 3%. SSI is 7.65% as an employee or 15.3% if you're self employed. Property taxes on homes is roughly $1,500 per $100,000 of market value and is not at all tied to income.
A family of 4 making $100,000 living in a $200,000 home (Which is about 1,800 sq feet here.) is in the 33% tax bracket. Their tax bill comes down to this; $33,000 in Federal taxes, say $27,000 after deductions, $6,961 in SSI (Taking into account that they hit the max cap on SSI around $91,000.), $3,000 in state income taxes and an additional $3,000 in local taxes.
Grand total?
$39,961
Tell me, why should these people pay more? Isn't that enough?
I didn't even include taxes on utility bills, an average 6% in sales tax, 43.5 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes, taxes on any kind of earned interest which probably add an additional $4,000 MINIMUM to that existing tax bill.
Why do we ask everyone but government to do with less?
Employers ask you to do more with less. Your family budget? You're always asked to do more with less. Why is government always the last group expected to do more with less?
Why do we need to be funding more when we get far less value for our money?
Do you think a family of 4 earning $100,000 sees $40,000 in value annually for their taxes?[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the taxes they spend every time they buy something at McDonald's, too! Oh, the wistful middle-class! If only those people in the 100,000 annual income could just afford their tuna fish and sliced bread!
If you earned over $83.5K, you're in the top 20% income earners in the United States. Over $150.5, you're in the top 5%. Would you prefer that we (1) shift the tax burden over to people who can afford it *less* than those poor top-20%'ers you want to champion, (2) cut taxes even further at the top (since that's a known catalyst to economic growth and budget surpluses, given 8 years of Reagan and 5 years of Bush Jr)
, (3) reduce spending?
I'm certain you'd choose the latter, but your blindness to government spending would focus on things that are becoming smaller and smaller proportions of our annual budget. You can support developing the military while questioning how much money is made by companies in the military-industrial complex. You can't support "reducing spending," however, while turning a blind eye to the fact that our government never balks at the price named by any corporation earning a profit off of *your* money. The great paradox of pro-corporation and pro-small gov't people when confronted with the fact that a small-government can't keep KBR balls deep in billions of dollars if they were run as efficiently as you would like the gov't to be run is simply to turn a blind eye to it, and grouse about all those damned Reagan-mythological creatures, the welfare queens, the NEA, NSF, and those government projects that don't produce "returns" (as if the returns that Halliburton garners are shared amongst the populace!)
And don't get me started on private prisons...
Think about this. Top marginal rate is 38%. Average state income tax is 3%. SSI is 7.65% as an employee or 15.3% if you're self employed. Property taxes on homes is roughly $1,500 per $100,000 of market value and is not at all tied to income.
A family of 4 making $100,000 living in a $200,000 home (Which is about 1,800 sq feet here.) is in the 33% tax bracket. Their tax bill comes down to this; $33,000 in Federal taxes, say $27,000 after deductions, $6,961 in SSI (Taking into account that they hit the max cap on SSI around $91,000.), $3,000 in state income taxes and an additional $3,000 in local taxes.
Grand total?
$39,961
Tell me, why should these people pay more? Isn't that enough?
I didn't even include taxes on utility bills, an average 6% in sales tax, 43.5 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes, taxes on any kind of earned interest which probably add an additional $4,000 MINIMUM to that existing tax bill.
Why do we ask everyone but government to do with less?
Employers ask you to do more with less. Your family budget? You're always asked to do more with less. Why is government always the last group expected to do more with less?
Why do we need to be funding more when we get far less value for our money?
Do you think a family of 4 earning $100,000 sees $40,000 in value annually for their taxes?[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the taxes they spend every time they buy something at McDonald's, too! Oh, the wistful middle-class! If only those people in the 100,000 annual income could just afford their tuna fish and sliced bread!
If you earned over $83.5K, you're in the top 20% income earners in the United States. Over $150.5, you're in the top 5%. Would you prefer that we (1) shift the tax burden over to people who can afford it *less* than those poor top-20%'ers you want to champion, (2) cut taxes even further at the top (since that's a known catalyst to economic growth and budget surpluses, given 8 years of Reagan and 5 years of Bush Jr)
, (3) reduce spending?I'm certain you'd choose the latter, but your blindness to government spending would focus on things that are becoming smaller and smaller proportions of our annual budget. You can support developing the military while questioning how much money is made by companies in the military-industrial complex. You can't support "reducing spending," however, while turning a blind eye to the fact that our government never balks at the price named by any corporation earning a profit off of *your* money. The great paradox of pro-corporation and pro-small gov't people when confronted with the fact that a small-government can't keep KBR balls deep in billions of dollars if they were run as efficiently as you would like the gov't to be run is simply to turn a blind eye to it, and grouse about all those damned Reagan-mythological creatures, the welfare queens, the NEA, NSF, and those government projects that don't produce "returns" (as if the returns that Halliburton garners are shared amongst the populace!)
And don't get me started on private prisons...
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']If you earned over $83.5K, you're in the top 20% income earners in the United States. Over $150.5, you're in the top 5%. Would you prefer that we (1) shift the tax burden over to people who can afford it *less* than those poor top-20%'ers you want to champion,[/QUOTE]
Mykey, here are the facts for you. Straight from the IRS.
You are in the top 50% of taxpayers with an adjusted gross of $15,771. The top 25% if yor adjusted gross is $31,165. You are top 5% if your adjusted gross is $70,696. Lastly you qualify for the top 1% of tax payers if your adjusted gross is $160,595.
Wow, those are staggering amounts of money. Absolutely mind boggling!
Here's the link. Requires Excel.
Check line 72 and fields C-G. I'm not championing the top 20%. I'm defending the top 50%. The people that pay 96.54% of all Federal income taxes as shown in line 194 and fields C-G..
We don't tax the poor. The IRS figures prove it.
Mykey, here are the facts for you. Straight from the IRS.
You are in the top 50% of taxpayers with an adjusted gross of $15,771. The top 25% if yor adjusted gross is $31,165. You are top 5% if your adjusted gross is $70,696. Lastly you qualify for the top 1% of tax payers if your adjusted gross is $160,595.
Wow, those are staggering amounts of money. Absolutely mind boggling!
Here's the link. Requires Excel.
Check line 72 and fields C-G. I'm not championing the top 20%. I'm defending the top 50%. The people that pay 96.54% of all Federal income taxes as shown in line 194 and fields C-G..
We don't tax the poor. The IRS figures prove it.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I didn't even include taxes on utility bills, an average 6% in sales tax, 43.5 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes, taxes on any kind of earned interest which probably add an additional $4,000 MINIMUM to that existing tax bill.[/QUOTE]
It doesnt include credits and deductions either you Freeptard.
When you talk about the government doing with less are you reffering to the war?
Nope. didnt think so.
It doesnt include credits and deductions either you Freeptard.
When you talk about the government doing with less are you reffering to the war?
Nope. didnt think so.
Why not just elimiante income taxes on the bottom 50%? That should give the economy a shot in the arm and raise revenue more than the decrease in taxes.
Or how about getting rid of any corporate welfare? Or maybe eliminate the Department of Education, since all they seem to do is write checks for states that have bullshit rules attached to them? How about negotiating with private companies for lower drug prices for medicare/medicaid patients? Or maybe cut down on a lot of the aid we give to other countries? Perhaps we could pull or drastically reduce our troops levels in Japan and other places around the world?
Or how about getting rid of any corporate welfare? Or maybe eliminate the Department of Education, since all they seem to do is write checks for states that have bullshit rules attached to them? How about negotiating with private companies for lower drug prices for medicare/medicaid patients? Or maybe cut down on a lot of the aid we give to other countries? Perhaps we could pull or drastically reduce our troops levels in Japan and other places around the world?
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What else is there to trim?
The only areas left in $400 billion are education, highway money and social programs.
Like I said two thirds go to straight entitlements. $500 billion to defense. That leaves you $400 billion to play with and negotiate with. Of that 10-12% goes to highways. Now you're down to $360 billion. Figure another $100 billion in pure pork? $260 billion.
Now of that where are you going to get enough bits and pieces to put together $50 billion?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like they need Bill Clinton submitting budgets to Congress then. He found a way.
The only areas left in $400 billion are education, highway money and social programs.
Like I said two thirds go to straight entitlements. $500 billion to defense. That leaves you $400 billion to play with and negotiate with. Of that 10-12% goes to highways. Now you're down to $360 billion. Figure another $100 billion in pure pork? $260 billion.
Now of that where are you going to get enough bits and pieces to put together $50 billion?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like they need Bill Clinton submitting budgets to Congress then. He found a way.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Drocket, the proper place for your thoughts are right here. Unfortunately you really don't have facts on your side but that's normal for liberals.[/QUOTE]
Hey PAD, since you keep bringing up DU, here's this week's Top Ten Conservative Idiots list. Looks like your hero, Bill O'Reilly, made #1.
Hey PAD, since you keep bringing up DU, here's this week's Top Ten Conservative Idiots list. Looks like your hero, Bill O'Reilly, made #1.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Bill O' Reilly is no hero of mine. I don't watch his show on Fox or listen to his radio program.
Here's the majority of the Top 10, I never need to go back. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rush, Hannity, Frist, DeLay. Anyone that kicks Democrat ass week in and week out? Yeah, they make the idiot list.
Now how will they explain Harry Reid's "We killed the Patriot Act." statement? Wouldn't that bold faced lie make him a Conservative Idiot in DUmmie land?
Here's the majority of the Top 10, I never need to go back. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rush, Hannity, Frist, DeLay. Anyone that kicks Democrat ass week in and week out? Yeah, they make the idiot list.
Now how will they explain Harry Reid's "We killed the Patriot Act." statement? Wouldn't that bold faced lie make him a Conservative Idiot in DUmmie land?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What is the issue for you? I'm the one arguing for taxation of churches in a moderate form, where religious institutions would not be harmed. The others don't seem to be making such distinctions.[/QUOTE]
1. Such taxation would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making such a law.
2. You really want the government to be allowed to tax churches, as in tax out of existence churches or give tax breaks to certain churches? It would be opening the Pandora's Box of our tax code on religion, with effects everyone from the religious right to the ACLU would abhor.
1. Such taxation would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making such a law.
2. You really want the government to be allowed to tax churches, as in tax out of existence churches or give tax breaks to certain churches? It would be opening the Pandora's Box of our tax code on religion, with effects everyone from the religious right to the ACLU would abhor.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What else is there to trim?[/QUOTE]
1. runaway entitlement spending
2. runaway defense spending
3. pork barrel crap
That is most of the federal budget. I've told people on this board before that we need to cut the government budget to 20-25% of what it is now eventually before the government becomes so big it overwhelms the people (it's getting damn big and damn close).
1. Phase out Social Security. (21.1%)
2. Phase out Medicare. (12.0%)
3. Cut defense spending (currently 17.4%)
4. Eliminate certain departments (Education being #1, let the states look to this issue)
5. Stop pork barrel spending.
There is tons that can be cut. Interest itself on the debt is 7.2% of our spending. We need to be cutting so much we run a surplus and eventually reduce that number, which is something the irresponsible Republican-majority Congress failed to do when we had the chance.
1. runaway entitlement spending
2. runaway defense spending
3. pork barrel crap
That is most of the federal budget. I've told people on this board before that we need to cut the government budget to 20-25% of what it is now eventually before the government becomes so big it overwhelms the people (it's getting damn big and damn close).
1. Phase out Social Security. (21.1%)
2. Phase out Medicare. (12.0%)
3. Cut defense spending (currently 17.4%)
4. Eliminate certain departments (Education being #1, let the states look to this issue)
5. Stop pork barrel spending.
There is tons that can be cut. Interest itself on the debt is 7.2% of our spending. We need to be cutting so much we run a surplus and eventually reduce that number, which is something the irresponsible Republican-majority Congress failed to do when we had the chance.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']1. Such taxation would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making such a law.[/quote]
Not everything unconstitutional is bad. But this is not a clear cut issue. Sure, it had been ruled unconstitutional, but as we can see from roe vs wade just having a ruling doesn't end debate. It's not explicitly stated.
You didn't read my posts. You need to complain to zion, and myke to a lesser degree. I stated, even in response to your post, I would take every step to avoid harm. I outright argued against the point you made.
Why should a church that essentially makes a profit be exempt from taxation? Some churches bring in large amounts of money, much more than what is necessary to keep it functioning.
Not everything unconstitutional is bad. But this is not a clear cut issue. Sure, it had been ruled unconstitutional, but as we can see from roe vs wade just having a ruling doesn't end debate. It's not explicitly stated.
You didn't read my posts. You need to complain to zion, and myke to a lesser degree. I stated, even in response to your post, I would take every step to avoid harm. I outright argued against the point you made.
Why should a church that essentially makes a profit be exempt from taxation? Some churches bring in large amounts of money, much more than what is necessary to keep it functioning.
[quote name='elprincipe']1. Such taxation would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making such a law.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, not taxing churches is more congruent with respecting the establishment of religion than taxing them like any other corporation or individual. I say tax them on their income minus expenses, just like any other business - ALL of them, no exceptions.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, not taxing churches is more congruent with respecting the establishment of religion than taxing them like any other corporation or individual. I say tax them on their income minus expenses, just like any other business - ALL of them, no exceptions.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Not everything unconstitutional is bad. But this is not a clear cut issue. Sure, it had been ruled unconstitutional, but as we can see from roe vs wade just having a ruling doesn't end debate. It's not explicitly stated.[/quote]
Sure it's explicitly stated: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." No law means no law.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You didn't read my posts. You need to complain to zion, and myke to a lesser degree. I stated, even in response to your post, I would take every step to avoid harm. I outright argued against the point you made.[/quote]
You're much more naive than I thought if you trust Congress to avoid harm to unpopular religions, especially given the religious history of this country. Go read up on what groups like Catholics and Mormons have had to endure.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Why should a church that essentially makes a profit be exempt from taxation? Some churches bring in large amounts of money, much more than what is necessary to keep it functioning.[/QUOTE]
Why should the government be able to tax religion? Why should the government be involved at all with religion? The government should just butt the hell out and let churches alone. I think this is a value shared by the Founding Fathers and also by the vast majority of Americans.
[quote name='bmulligan']Actually, not taxing churches is more congruent with respecting the establishment of religion than taxing them like any other corporation or individual. I say tax them on their income minus expenses, just like any other business - ALL of them, no exceptions.[/QUOTE]
So by your logic, the government should not tax groups that try to destroy religion, such as the ACLU, but should tax the charitable giving of poor worshipers? I can't disagree more.
Sure it's explicitly stated: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." No law means no law.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You didn't read my posts. You need to complain to zion, and myke to a lesser degree. I stated, even in response to your post, I would take every step to avoid harm. I outright argued against the point you made.[/quote]
You're much more naive than I thought if you trust Congress to avoid harm to unpopular religions, especially given the religious history of this country. Go read up on what groups like Catholics and Mormons have had to endure.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Why should a church that essentially makes a profit be exempt from taxation? Some churches bring in large amounts of money, much more than what is necessary to keep it functioning.[/QUOTE]
Why should the government be able to tax religion? Why should the government be involved at all with religion? The government should just butt the hell out and let churches alone. I think this is a value shared by the Founding Fathers and also by the vast majority of Americans.
[quote name='bmulligan']Actually, not taxing churches is more congruent with respecting the establishment of religion than taxing them like any other corporation or individual. I say tax them on their income minus expenses, just like any other business - ALL of them, no exceptions.[/QUOTE]
So by your logic, the government should not tax groups that try to destroy religion, such as the ACLU, but should tax the charitable giving of poor worshipers? I can't disagree more.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']1. runaway entitlement spending
2. runaway defense spending
3. pork barrel crap
[/QUOTE]
Please note I asked that question after discounting the sacred cows of entitlements and defence spending. You're looking at 70-75% of a $2,700,000,000,000 filling those two categories.
I was asking what's left to cut after you've taken those things off the table which is what this lazy ass congress has done.
2. runaway defense spending
3. pork barrel crap
[/QUOTE]
Please note I asked that question after discounting the sacred cows of entitlements and defence spending. You're looking at 70-75% of a $2,700,000,000,000 filling those two categories.
I was asking what's left to cut after you've taken those things off the table which is what this lazy ass congress has done.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Sure it's explicitly stated: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." No law means no law.[/quote]
Ok, no law means no law. Therefore, they should not be given special priveleges. No special considerations will be made. They pay their taxes and they survive, they don't and the IRS will be knocking down their door.
The current laws clearly aid religion and are, therefore, unconstitutional.
That's nice, but irrelevent. This is directed at individual places of worship. I'm not sure what congress has to do with it if a law were already passed. They don't decide what amount in taxes you or I pay, that's the job of the IRS. They wouldn't decide (they wouldn't have the time even if they wanted to) which ones were taxed.
And most churches would not be taxed. Most aren't rich, or bringing in excessive amounts of profit (or anything well beyond the needs). The exception is not tax free, the exception would be being taxed.
Aren't churches a part of this country? They can't do whatever they want, they have laws they must follow. They may get exemption from certain laws, but only because of existing laws allowing such exemptions. They're not above the law.
Ok, no law means no law. Therefore, they should not be given special priveleges. No special considerations will be made. They pay their taxes and they survive, they don't and the IRS will be knocking down their door.
The current laws clearly aid religion and are, therefore, unconstitutional.
That's nice, but irrelevent. This is directed at individual places of worship. I'm not sure what congress has to do with it if a law were already passed. They don't decide what amount in taxes you or I pay, that's the job of the IRS. They wouldn't decide (they wouldn't have the time even if they wanted to) which ones were taxed.
And most churches would not be taxed. Most aren't rich, or bringing in excessive amounts of profit (or anything well beyond the needs). The exception is not tax free, the exception would be being taxed.
Aren't churches a part of this country? They can't do whatever they want, they have laws they must follow. They may get exemption from certain laws, but only because of existing laws allowing such exemptions. They're not above the law.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
If you're going to tax religions, tax all non-profits.
If they run a surplus? Tax them. Tax all the alphabet 503c's, tax the Rainbow Coalition, tax the NAACP, tax NOW, tax NARAL, tax the ACLU. While you're at it tax the Boy and Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball, YMCA, Salvation Army, charity hospitals while you're at it.
I mean what's the point of just taxing one non-profit group?
Tax them all.
If they run a surplus? Tax them. Tax all the alphabet 503c's, tax the Rainbow Coalition, tax the NAACP, tax NOW, tax NARAL, tax the ACLU. While you're at it tax the Boy and Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball, YMCA, Salvation Army, charity hospitals while you're at it.
I mean what's the point of just taxing one non-profit group?
Tax them all.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
The whole point is not all religious organizations behave as non profit organizations.
bread's done