Down goes NPR

[Chief Joseph]

On what planet does that leap of logic occur?

Slippery Slopeville. It's on the ladder just above "dogs start marrying cats."

[The White Tiger]

Since so many are frothing at the mouth to remove subsidies then eliminating tax exempt status for church's would naturally follow suit.

Nope, actually nothing "natural" about paying taxes and there certainly isn't anything LEGAL about considering it.

So, it's obviously NOT logical!

Besides - you may have missed that whole argument keeping governments fingers out of the church in an effort to derive any support whatsoever from the church - it's something called "speration of church and state" - maybe you've heard about? It was actually the original intent behind the FIRST AMMENDMENT of the U.S. constitution. It was written to protect churches from the governments tendency to take over the church and tell the people that god wanted them to obey the King...usually giving him more money in the form of taxes - and usually the only thing the people got was heartache and trouble from the government....terrible mess that - best you keep your naive understanding and limited knowledge out of that tent...

The FIRST part of the very FIRST ammendment addresses the limitation on government concerning religion - free speech comes only after and because of freedom of religion. Here, let me show you exactly what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - when it says congress shall make no law...it means that congress can't even THINK about doing ANYTHING to religion - it has virtually N O authority over the church....at all! If government were to be able to tax (and they can't even consider it) that would limit the freedom...so government will NEVER be able to tax churches...isn't that cool!

Now, (and I'm probably about to step all IN your cool aid) if you want to go after some serious revenue enhancement you should check out a REAL non-profit scam. There is a pool of revenue SO vast - and completely exempt AND completely NOT protected from ANY laws of taxation - literally BILLIONS of tax free dollars piling up every year - tax-free college and university endowments - there's almost enough in them to pay for one year of Obama budget deficits (just the amount he spent over and above the record collections - not actually enough to pay for his runaway budget)!

Makes one wonder why - if the government is in such dire need of taxation (budget cuts and all) why this special ignorance?

Guess we just aren;t meant to know why some things are protected and never meant to be considered - but  ignorant people think they have a right to them - when perfectly attainable stuff is right out in the open for anyone to tax - and yet not a single solitary Senator or Coingressman would ever dare to bring it up....oh well, who is John Galt?....

[Durango 95]

On what planet does that leap of logic occur?

Slippery Slopeville. It's on the ladder just above "dogs start marrying cats."

Not getting your point are you saying that removing the tax exempt status would be somehow a slippery slope? If so, how so?

[Durango 95]

Since so many are frothing at the mouth to remove subsidies then eliminating tax exempt status for church's would naturally follow suit.

Nope, actually nothing "natural" about paying taxes and there certainly isn't anything LEGAL about considering it.

Then you are against all forms of taxation. We'll at least there is consistency in that argument.

[Chief Joseph]

On what planet does that leap of logic occur?

Slippery Slopeville. It's on the ladder just above "dogs start marrying cats."

Not getting your point are you saying that removing the tax exempt status would be somehow a slippery slope? If so, how so?

Going from not subsidizing radio to removing exemption status from religion is a non-sequitur. You failed to establish a logical link between the two - because there is none.

[Durango 95]

Fair enough, understood.

The point I am making is that both church and NPR benefit. One receives tax money the other is exempt from paying it.  For example, Dbuc doesn't want NPR to continue to receive subsidies, by the same token there are many that feel churches should not receive an exemption. As Klink pointed out millions of dollars could be used w/ the money earned by taxation of churches. So I am asking the question, in this time of "budget crisis" if it's okay to withdraw support for NPR (as an example) then why is it not okay (as an example) to consider removing the "free ride" for churches. After all isn't this being discussed as a way to help in this budget crisis?

[Chief Joseph]

I see - you're asking me to establish that link for you. I'll get right on that.

[dbucfan]

Durango - one (NPR) is pissing away money.  The other (not taxing churches) is agreeing not to rob more folks.  There is no valid comparison. 

[Durango 95]

No, Illuminator. I wouldn't ask you to go beyond your depth.
Just stick w/ what you know best, avoiding the debate and leaving others the impression that you know something they don't without ever putting anything on the table that you could be challenged on. It's sort of an interesting  schtick you have working but when you go to the well too many times it does become transparent.

[Chief Joseph]

Since so many are frothing at the mouth to remove subsidies then eliminating tax exempt status for church's would naturally follow suit.

Is there a question mark there that I don't see?

So I am asking the question, in this time of "budget crisis" if it's okay to withdraw support for NPR (as an example) then why is it not okay (as an example) to consider removing the "free ride" for churches.

You tried to connect two things that weren't logically connected. When we didn't fall for it, you turned it around and tried to put the onus of making that connection on the people who disagreed with you. Still not falling for it. Your "schtick" isn't even interesting.

[spartan]

Fair enough, understood.

The point I am making is that both church and NPR benefit. One receives tax money the other is exempt from paying it.  For example, Dbuc doesn't want NPR to continue to receive subsidies, by the same token there are many that feel churches should not receive an exemption. As Klink pointed out millions of dollars could be used w/ the money earned by taxation of churches. So I am asking the question, in this time of "budget crisis" if it's okay to withdraw support for NPR (as an example) then why is it not okay (as an example) to consider removing the "free ride" for churches. After all isn't this being discussed as a way to help in this budget crisis?

Weeeeeeeell, let's see.

The Govt takes my money away from me with the power of force and gives it to NPR. The Govt takes nothing away from me and gives nothing to my local (or any) church.

Other than that they are both identical circumstances I guess,

[Durango 95]

Since so many are frothing at the mouth to remove subsidies then eliminating tax exempt status for church's would naturally follow suit.

Is there a question mark there that I don't see?

So I am asking the question, in this time of "budget crisis" if it's okay to withdraw support for NPR (as an example) then why is it not okay (as an example) to consider removing the "free ride" for churches.

You tried to connect two things that weren't logically connected. When we didn't fall for it, you turned it around and tried to put the onus of making that connection on the people who disagreed with you. Still not falling for it. Your "schtick" isn't even interesting.

Who is "WE".


Now you have taken to speaking for others? Is this your safety in numbers defense? Pitiful.

[dbucfan]

Euphemistic we Durango - but you knew that as you avoid the rational offerings of others who disagree with you.  Here's a simpler one - I already pay taxes - if money the Church I support is again taxed on the charitable contribution you risk creating an adverse affect on the tax status of all charitable organizations.  Now if that is your goal you are clearly in a minority.  Personally, I would prefer the Government get out of the business of redistribution - and let private individuals provide charitable donations to organizations that help those in need. 

[The White Tiger]

Since so many are frothing at the mouth to remove subsidies then eliminating tax exempt status for church's would naturally follow suit.

Nope, actually nothing "natural" about paying taxes and there certainly isn't anything LEGAL about considering it.

Then you are against all forms of taxation. We'll at least there is consistency in that argument.

you say that like it's a bad thing?

Look, if you want to remove subsidies - you've got an ally in me.

Since the government subsidizes free-speech to a particular radio program - it means the government could pay to subborn certain speech...

The other isn't an issue - because the government is forbidden to consider (that's what "Congress shall make NO law means).

So if you come back with another snappy non-seguitur - I'll see the evidence of your fingers productivity - but you might as well start with your left hand NOT on the home keys...because it's simply going to look like Russian to me (did you see what I did there? It was a bit clunky, but I'm pretty sure even you could pick-up what I laid down for ya')!

See - one they shouldn't have started - the other they can't ever even consider!

I LOVE telling the government to pound sand - don't you?

I think you missed the treasure trove of taxation I pointed you to - either that, or I just butchered one of your sacred cows...?

Here it is again for you - wouldn't want you to miss the billions available right now!

http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2008/10/15/washington-takes-aim-at-college-endowments

As of 2007 the endowments held $400 billion and were "earning" $33 billion/year! Again, not a single protection in the constitution - so if you need to end subsidies - man there's half trillion dollars!

That would pay for half of the first year of Obamacare!

Or it would help defray the cost of Obama's wars he said he was going to end (3 years ago)...

Just saying - I'm nothing if not consistent, you said so yourself - so, how about it? Lets deny ALL tax-exempts that the bill of rights ALLOWS!

I know it would be distateful, but just think of all the stuff you could have!?

[Durango 95]

Since so many are frothing at the mouth to remove subsidies then eliminating tax exempt status for church's would naturally follow suit.

Nope, actually nothing "natural" about paying taxes and there certainly isn't anything LEGAL about considering it.

Then you are against all forms of taxation. We'll at least there is consistency in that argument.

you say that like it's a bad thing?

No W/T don't assume I am saying it as a bad thing, I am simply clarifying where you stand.  I am curious as to how all that would work though. You got any ideas on that? I mean if it's feasible who wouldn't be all in for that. But frankly I can't see how that would work.