Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

But as a business, they are all unprofitable, I wasn't speaking only to failed mortgages. Whether it is mortgages or student loans at 3%, they are losing money on every dollar lent. Losses are greater than what they are charging much less processing, collecting, funding etc.

Nobody likes the bailouts, but we are bailing out the government every single day of the year. Who really knows the cost of sourcing, processing, funding, servicing, collecting and recovering those loans? Surely the government doesn't report all in costs on anything. Nor do they count losses against the cost of programs like this...they just lose the money and raise taxes.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...8pDOAw&usg=AFQjCNEJO70as7ua2P0Z0ldyGwXuQzlZWQ

Somebody gets it.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

I understand your point - but this bit bothers me. It would seem that it would be better to tax every nonprofit than to apply "good/bad" value judgments to decide which ones to tax and which ones to leave alone. I would understand a profit vs. nonprofit exemption but I'd be wary of not taxing only the "wholly good" ones.

I think most churches are taking in enough money in donations to keep the lights and heat on, and to pay a pastor; not much more. The membership dues at our church have been 50 cents a month since 1920. Of course there are those megachurches that get all the press and have a celebrity minister who is also a best-selling author.

sorry for double post but they are two completely different issues...an anecdote: woman moves out of house in my parent's neighborhood and goes to FLA...(don't know if she plucked her eyebrows along the way) but I digress, house is vacant for a while so we're all asking mom and dad what is going on with that house. Soon her son shows up to live there, somebody asks him what he does for a living...he is a preacher, he sets up a 'church' in an industrial park, and lives off the money people donate during services. He lives there maybe a year and moves on. While I knew preachers lived off the donations, this was the first time I had witnessed the chicken being before the egg...he was a preacher because you could make tax free money and have a lot of flexibility with the donations, not because he had a calling.

Does anybody know how much money gets donated to churches in the US? I suspect it is staggering, even during these times.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

One thing to take note of is that the average church is not an exciting economic endevour. The majority are average sized churches that have a few hundred people attend once or twice a week. And if you hear anything about the financial state of the average church, its usually not pretty. In fact, I found this in the Christian Post just now:

Executive pastors at churches that have a weekend attendance of 2,000 or more persons earn, on average, $99,000 a year and worship pastors get paid $75,000

Now for many $100k may seem like a lot. But remember this person is the top executive and most valuable asset of the church. If this were a corporation, a manager (certainly not a VP or president) would be making this amount. So taking away an exemption would probably be a bit of a hardship for megachurches, but it would wipe out tens of thousands of average churches and small towns would 'lose their religion'.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

I suppose the parishioners walk to church, are all home-schooled (for multiple generations), generate their own electricity, pump their own water, provide their own security, put out fires by themselves, never get sick...basically, they are all hermits. Oh, and the church itself enjoys tax-exempt status which in its own right is a form of tax payer support.

this is one of your most bizarre non-sequiters yet! what does any of this have to do with hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, shelters for battered spouses, and the like??

In Disney's version of The Grasshopper and the Ant fable, the ending was not resolved by having some all-powerful entomologist step in and take food away from the ants by force to redistribute to the grasshoppers under some welfare benefit program! the ants and the grasshopper worked it out directly between themselves.

or perhaps you are merely sending a straw man to limp his way forward? if a person says we have "too much" government intervention in our lives, you respond by describing potential dire consequences that might ensue if we had no government whatsoever????

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

Most churches are legitimate non-profits, but when the Catholic Dioceses in Sioux Falls sends out a DVD showing people how to vote Yes on an abortion ban while advising parishioners that they will burn in Hellfire for all eternity if they vote No, I think they might have crossed that line. Do you disagree?

I do think that is crossing the line.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

I do think that is crossing the line.

really? if a community group sends out a dvd on how to vote no against a housing development, is that crossing the line?

I am by no means a supporter of organized religions, but if they have money, legally obtained, and use it to encourage their members to follow the beliefs of their church...I don't see how that crosses some significant line. The little league could encourage people to vote yes on a new park for ball fields, would we say that is crossing the line too?

Religions shouldn't get more favorable treatment than other non-profits but they shouldn't get less favorable treatment just because some people don't like religion.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

les - you make some good points, but you're approaching the question in a very pragmatic way that doesn't really apply to religion, given its peculiar legal status in the US. Even if you could demonstrate that a particular religion was a net drain on the community, government would still not be allowed to levy a tax targeted at people who join, e.g. they couldn't turn the street leading to their building into a toll road. It's not an economic (nor even political nor moral) question - it's purely a legal question.

I understand that hence the not being willing to lose the exemption.

I understand your point - but this bit bothers me. It would seem that it would be better to tax every nonprofit than to apply "good/bad" value judgments to decide which ones to tax and which ones to leave alone. I would understand a profit vs. nonprofit exemption but I'd be wary of not taxing only the "wholly good" ones.

I think most churches are taking in enough money in donations to keep the lights and heat on, and to pay a pastor; not much more. The membership dues at our church have been 50 cents a month since 1920. Of course there are those megachurches that get all the press and have a celebrity minister who is also a best-selling author.

See above. I do not think it is possible to decide what is good or bad. That would be a different definition for everyone.

As to the DVD- that is a political action.

this is one of your most bizarre non-sequiters yet! what does any of this have to do with hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, shelters for battered spouses, and the like??

In Disney's version of The Grasshopper and the Ant fable, the ending was not resolved by having some all-powerful entomologist step in and take food away from the ants by force to redistribute to the grasshoppers under some welfare benefit program! the ants and the grasshopper worked it out directly between themselves.

or perhaps you are merely sending a straw man to limp his way forward? if a person says we have "too much" government intervention in our lives, you respond by describing potential dire consequences that might ensue if we had no government whatsoever????

Follow along- the next few pages answer the question.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

Most churches are legitimate non-profits, but when the Catholic Dioceses in Sioux Falls sends out a DVD showing people how to vote Yes on an abortion ban while advising parishioners that they will burn in Hellfire for all eternity if they vote No, I think they might have crossed that line. Do you disagree?

Let me ask you this: Are you under the impression that, if a group to which you give your beliefs (whether it's a church, corporation, devil worshiping clan, whatever it may be) tells you to jump off of a cliff, do you feel an obligation to do so? If you do, then I can understand why you feel the way you feel. No one said anyone had to believe anything that anyone says.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

I'll grant it's a fuzzy line, but it's not invisible.

Restrictions on lobbying activity by 501c3s

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

A DVD to convince the flock that abortion is not consistent with (whatever), with the goal of spreading general opposition to the practice of abortion . . . okay.

Leaflets or other media explaining how to defeat proposed legislation . . . nicht okay.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

I'll grant it's a fuzzy line, but it's not invisible.

Restrictions on lobbying activity by 501c3s



A DVD to convince the flock that abortion is not consistent with (whatever), with the goal of spreading general opposition to the practice of abortion . . . okay.

Leaflets or other media explaining how to defeat proposed legislation . . . nicht okay.

It depends on your definition of "substantial". Priceless's definition is 0.000000001%. Jeremiah Wright's definition is 99.9999999999999%.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

really? if a community group sends out a dvd on how to vote no against a housing development, is that crossing the line?

I am by no means a supporter of organized religions, but if they have money, legally obtained, and use it to encourage their members to follow the beliefs of their church...I don't see how that crosses some significant line. The little league could encourage people to vote yes on a new park for ball fields, would we say that is crossing the line too?

Yes. You can say "Question 2 will authorize new money for playing fields...this is why we need the money/what we will do with the money." You cannot say "Vote Yes on 2" Likewise, the Catholic Diocese could have said "Question 6 is about the ban on abortion. As you know, Bible verse X says Y about abortion so on election day vote your conscience." Even I would have been OK with that because in the end they're advising you to vote your conscience - not showing you how to vote Yes on Question 6 and saying your soul is ****ed to eternal Hellfire if you don't vote yes. Notice also that the people in the flock have to vote - not voting is as good as voting no, and you still end up in Hell. On a side note, when did God become so angry? You'd think after getting laid and having a kid He'd be more mellowed out.

Let me ask you this: Are you under the impression that, if a group to which you give your beliefs (whether it's a church, corporation, devil worshiping clan, whatever it may be) tells you to jump off of a cliff, do you feel an obligation to do so? If you do, then I can understand why you feel the way you feel. No one said anyone had to believe anything that anyone says.

No, but then I'm not a lemming. But it's nice that you equate voting with jumping off a cliff...

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

It depends on your definition of "substantial". Priceless's definition is 0.000000001%. Jeremiah Wright's definition is 99.9999999999999%.

That's where the current law gets silly.

Quite frankly, it should be zero point zero.

It is not an infringement (IMO) on first amendment rights to stipulate that tax exemption applies to educational, non-lobbying activity. If you can't "educate" in a way that has clear relevance for a public policy issue of urgent importance to you, your communication skills are too weak to be a preacher, anyway.

 

[pirate]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

Yes. You can say "Question 2 will authorize new money for playing fields...this is why we need the money/what we will do with the money." You cannot say "Vote Yes on 2" Likewise, the Catholic Diocese could have said "Question 6 is about the ban on abortion. As you know, Bible verse X says Y about abortion so on election day vote your conscience." Even I would have been OK with that because in the end they're advising you to vote your conscience - not showing you how to vote Yes on Question 6 and saying your soul is ****ed to eternal Hellfire if you don't vote yes. Notice also that the people in the flock have to vote - not voting is as good as voting no, and you still end up in Hell. On a side note, when did God become so angry? You'd think after getting laid and having a kid He'd be more mellowed out.



No, but then I'm not a lemming. But it's nice that you equate voting with jumping off a cliff...

Not agreeing and denigrating are two different things. I respect the right of other people to believe in religion. And I'm pretty sure the whole immaculate conception thing makes your statement on getting laid even more idiotic. if that is possible.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

it's nice that you equate voting with jumping off a cliff...

I'm glad we had this talk. But I'm compelled to point out that this last bit reminds me of the Facebook bumper sticker being posted by some of my righty friends: "Voting for Obama would be like backing up the Titanic to ram the iceberg again."

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

Not agreeing and denigrating are two different things. I respect the right of other people to believe in religion. And I'm pretty sure the whole immaculate conception thing makes your statement on getting laid even more idiotic. if that is possible.

hate speech never counts as such if it's conservatives being hated. And it never will, because frankly it doesn't really bother us that much.

or the old standby, "Jesus predicted you'd say that."

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

hate speech never counts as such if it's conservatives being hated. And it never will, because frankly it doesn't really bother us that much.

That is hate speech? Wow. I thought it was just a funny line thrown into an otherwise logical rant....but if you want to elevate it to hate speech, be my guest.

Bottom line: There's a way to communicate your message without being blatant about it. ABB is correct: If you don't possess this ability, you shouldn't be a preacher.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

That is hate speech? Wow.

I'm sorry that accusation was so shocking to your delicate sensibilities. You may continue with your "gentle corrections" lecture and I will keep my mouth shut to avoid any offense.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

Meanwhile, in actual elections: Cynthia Dill (D) and Charlie Summers (R) emerged from their primaries yesterday and will get to be the sacrificial lambs that get crucified by Angus King. King says he has not decided if he will caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans and will not decide or announce until he is in Washington. King wants to follow the example set by Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts regarding Super PACs.

Former Gov. Angus King, the presumed front-runner in the race to replace Olympia Snowe in the U.S. Senate, said Wednesday he’ll discourage spending by outside groups on his behalf if his opponents do the same.

King, who is running as an independent, called such spending “a tidal wave of anonymous campaign expenditures that distort our political process.”

He said he sent a letter to the other Senate candidates this morning challenging them to condemn this spending, too.

In Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican, and his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren reached such an agreement.

Under federal election law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate with third-party groups, often called super PACs, so Brown and Warren had to find a innovative way to discourage spending by these independent political action committees.

Called the “People’s Pledge,” the pact requires that a candidate who benefits from a third-party ad has to pay a penalty. The money goes to a charity chosen by the other candidate.

In a letter they wrote to third-party groups earlier this year, Warren and Brown said: “Your spending will damage the candidate you intend to help.”

The pledge is credited with helping improve the tone of the Massachusetts Senate race.

In the District 1 House race on the GOP side, there is a virtual tie. Jonathan Courtney leads Patrick Calder 14,547 to 14,282. There is a press conference scheduled for the top of the hour with both campaigns. The winner will be demolished by Chellie Pingree in November.

Locally, my town approved the sale of fireworks with absolutely no restrictions. Increased Emergency Room visits are likely to follow...

 

[Priceless]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

I'm sorry that accusation was so shocking to your delicate sensibilities. You may continue with your "gentle corrections" lecture and I will keep my mouth shut to avoid any offense.

On the contrary, I'm honored that you think such a benign statement on my part is worthy of the title "hate speech." I had no idea the bar was so incredibly low.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Elections 2012:What unites us is greater than what divides us

And I'm pretty sure the whole immaculate conception thing makes your statement on getting laid even more idiotic. if that is possible.

well, a lot of "believers" don't quite get the "immaculate conception" thing right either....it is not about Jesus' conception; it instead is a doctrine about Mary's conception....and it is "okay" that on a biological level Mary was conceived in the conventional way.

It is part of doctrine that every human being since Adam and Eve was/is born with "original sin"....except Mary (I guess it would not do to have the Mother of God be born with "original sin" and so she received an exemption). Her "immaculate" conception is her being conceived without the blight of original sin.

The idea of parthenogenisis in Mary producing a male offspring is a different theological doctrine entirely.