Time to tax churches and NGOS.

Jimmy said:

No, the implication that the rich aren't pulling their weight w/r/t to taxes is a joke.

You are obviously free to disagree, but it's demonstrably not a joke at all. The rich are paying some of the lowest tax rates of the past 100 years, and that doesn't include the myriad loopholes they use to effectively pay even fewer taxes.

There are other taxation systems that are at least worth of discussion.

So no, it's not a joke.

As is the idea that "taxing the rich" would realistically do anything at all to alleviate our current situation.

What situation?

Changing the tax code could create jobs. It could prevent the dramatic cuts we're seeing in public programs like public health or job training. It could do a lot of things, actually.

Your assumption was that unfair taxation of churches would lead to right-wing led riots in the streets. That doesn't sound like someone who's interested in an honest discussion.

I know you are but what am I? Is that what you're arguing?

My point is that I can't possibly envision a situation in which Christians are persecuted or unfairly taxed in this country.

You know how many atheists we have in Congress?

Zero.

Muslims?

One.

So, yeah. No.

Jimmy said:

I enjoy it when people spend the majority of their effort on a forum attacking the right, and then try to escape discussions by feigning some kind of above-it-all condescension.

Please give examples of me attacking the right, or avoiding a conversation.

Boygabriel said:

Obama and the Democrats have done virtually nothing but cut taxes, and he is about to cut medicare and medicaid and maybe defense, if we're lucky.

Ha - Is as polite as I can be. And I'd hate for you to have to start threatening people with your mod status.

armchair_warrior said:

I could tell you for a fact whynot 31 is not a lefty and lol boyabriel is lol.

It's all true.

quiet - you communist.

Boygabriel said:

quiet - you communist.

I'll be quiet once the communist party accepts people who are proud capitalists.

Boygabriel said:

It doesn't fit the Republican narrative, I know.

But facts are stubborn sometimes.

"Facts" from Paul Krugman don't count.

vidro3 said:

except discretionary spending hasn't increased in 10 years.

A supporting source would be nice, but assuming you're correct, so what? It doesn't have to. Social Security, Medicare - at their current rate of spending, they'll be gone in our lifetimes. We need to make cuts and grow the economy, not just find new taxes to plug gaps in unstainable programs until the next election cycle.

Jimmy said:

I didn't call you an absolutist, I called you a leftist. You're advocating the taxation of churches, I'd call that attacking the right. You refer to the Tea Party as a bunch of ranters, while deploring the lack of a third party. You dismiss GOP calls for spending cuts as "grandstanding," ignoring that the only reason they aren't allowed to move forward with those cuts is because the Dems are blocking them. Somehow, in your mind, that's the GOP's fault. And then when I ask you direct questions, you ignore them and rise above the fray.

There are no leftist churches? MLK was dude on the right?

The Tea Party is a bunch of ranters, as are the union members who think the government has an an obligation to bring union, manufacturing jobs back to Ohio.

I would love a third party, and would love it if the party could somehow keep out the racists that are attracted to angry, populist movements.

I would like the Tea Party to focus on its founding purpose (Fiscal responsibility), and remain pretty quiet on social issues. I believe the Tea Party would triple in size if would only shut up on the social issues.

I would like the Tea Party to get a leader, so it is not constantly thwarted by every idiot who has $12 to buy a "Don't Tread on Me" flag.

If you feel the need to categorize me, think of a fiscal conservative - social liberal. Have you ever heard of Bloomberg?

....now lets get back to taxing churches.

Boygabriel said:

there's a communist party in this country? Are they allowed on any opinion to shows to actually argue their side?

Of course not; we don't even listen to the Working Families Party.

BTW, how come no one has pointed out that churches and NGOs consume resources, yet don't make an equitable contribution to the cost?

...in this way, we can avoid the whole "the wealthy already contribute more than they consume" argument as we discuss this issue. [damn, it must suck to be wealthy in the US ...sarcasm]

whynot_31 said:

There are no leftist churches? MLK was dude on the right?

Per his niece, yes - http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/biography/5934-niece-calls-mlk-pro-life-social-conservative

"...judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin..." sounds pretty right-wing to me, pretty much in direct contrast to affirmitive action programs, "social justice," etc.

But my larger point on that is that advocating new tax sources - regardless of the source - is an inherently leftist position.

But I'll admit, in reading back through some of your posts, you are more fair-minded than my initial impression, I apologize.

I would like the Tea Party to focus on its founding purpose (Fiscal responsibility), and remain pretty quiet on social issues. I believe the Tea Party would triple in size if would only shut up on the social issues.

If you paid attention to the Tea Party, that's exactly what it's trying to do. As you say, any populist movement will attract fringe characters. But it's central goal is, and always has been, fiscal responsibility. I was at an early rally in which a woman was booed off the stage when she tried to pray, which was fine by me. But the MSM and the left insist on trying to paint the Tea Party as religious nutjobs and dominated by social conservative idealogy, because that's exactly what people don't like.

I'd categorize Bloomberg as a social liberal and a fiscal centrist, but primarily as a big government advocate for ever-increasing intrustion into our privacy, which nullifies any redeeming qualities he may have, IMO.

whynot_31 said:

BTW, how come no one has pointed out that churches and NGOs consume resources, yet don't make an equitable contribution to the cost?

I would argue that members of churches already do contribute, through individual taxes. In addition, churches contribute significantly to communities through charitable acts, financial giving, food banks and shelters, etc.

On a related note: I would guess that taxation of churches would be, in many cases, a regressive tax, hitting low-income families through the decrease of those services mentioned above. If anything, those low-income families would be asked to contribute more through donations (which I assume we're not talking about taxing?).

Jimmy-

"...judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin..." sounds pretty right-wing to me, pretty much in direct contrast to affirmative action programs, "social justice," etc.

is this the part where you imply that only the right truly understands the work ethic, and those not on the right think everything should be free and provided by a magical government? (yawn) This is the same two party, left-right rhetoric.

But my larger point on that is that advocating new tax sources - regardless of the source - is an inherently leftist position.

Is it better to spend and not tax?

But I'll admit, in reading back through some of your posts, you are more fair-minded than my initial impression, I apologize.

Life gets even harder if you realize both US parties are full of crap. Instead of just attacking the other party, I believe that the nation's thinkers largely spend their time holding their noses prevent stench of both parties. It makes it tough to cast a ballot, but we manage.

If you paid attention to the Tea Party, that's exactly what it's trying to do. As you say, any populist movement will attract fringe characters. But it's central goal is, and always has been, fiscal responsibility. I was at an early rally in which a woman was booed off the stage when she tried to pray, which was fine by me. But the MSM and the left insist on trying to paint the Tea Party as religious nutjobs and dominated by social conservative idealogy, because that's exactly what people don't like.

The Tea Party needs a leader. Its fringe chapters are bringing it down, and both the Democratic and Republican parties crack a smile when they see it implode over and over. You seem to think the Tea Party is only disliked by those on the left; I disagree...

I'd categorize Bloomberg as a social liberal and a fiscal centrist, but primarily as a big government advocate for ever-increasing intrusion into our privacy, which nullifies any redeeming qualities he may have, IMO.

Have you considered liking the Facebook page of Ron Paul or the John Birch society?