I'm guessing the organized cover up of the rape of tens of thousands of little boys escaped you.

Yes, a tax break is a subsidy.

Federal and state governments provide huge benefits to all churches in the form of income and sales exemptions and as well as substantial grants.

We all pay higher taxes because the churches pay none.

We also simply give them money. The Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies has given the Catholic Church billions of dollars.

And to get back to the idea that all of this was the belief of the founding fathers, that is simply incorrect. Tax exempt status for religions is not in the Constitution. A court made this determination.

You said "the only "rule" I've ever seen a church help break is gluttony". How is stating facts of very recent history "hate and bigotry"?

I think it's time to take this thread somewhere else... :kimblair:

For a tax break to be a subsidy is to imply that the money is the government's in the first place and that is completely backwards. If I earn a dollar and then only pay 20 cents in tax rather than 30, I haven't been given a subsidy. I've simply kept more of my money.

The money flows from the people to the government, not the other way around. Donations aren't earned income so they aren't taxable for any charity.

Sorry, that's not how I see it. If you have two businesses - and the church is certainly a business - and one pays taxes while the other does not, the one not paying taxes is receiving a subsidy.

There is nothing in the constitution that states religous institutions can not be taxed. That is a decision courts have made. It's also been revoked when the government decided they didn't like what a religous group was doing. Bob Jones University is a good example, the government revoked their tax exempt status when they refused to let black students go to school there. So you can see, what the government "gives", they can also take away.

A religious college was selling a service. A church on a sunday morning doesn't sell anything, but when they do sell things, that income certainly can and should be taxed. But a donation to a church should NOT be taxed.

The question is whether or not the donor should receive a tax deduction for it. That may be another story.

I don't seem to remember everyone up in arms when the media, celebrities, and EVERYBODY blasted Bush. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c*nt as directly and blatantly as it could get and yet it barely made news. John Boehner and Eric Cantor were just called "demons" by a REPRESENTATIVE and it made minimal news.

Yet... on the other hand, a talk show host calls a college student a slut and it is headline news for a week straight and the PRESIDENT gets involved??

You really don't see the disparity in this? GMAFB :skep:


Can you even imagine what would happen if it was reversed and Rush called Michelle Obama a c*nt??

What if John Boehner called Maxine Waters a "demon"??

Can you imagine the response if Fox News analysts started calling Obama a "bumbling idiot" or anything like was said about Bush on CNN??

There's also nothing in the Constitution that says they should be taxed. The constitution doesn't set tax policy, it tells Congress to do that.

And Churches most certainly aren't businesses. They do not operate for profit, they produce no products.

Another liberal lying thru their teeth? Who woulda thunk it? :rofl:

You seem like an OK guy, but I gotta tell ya; Politics have GOT to be the most boring topic on the planet. (No offense) It boggles my mind people devote an hour a day to this shit, nevermind their entire LIVES.

At least they will have an entire life.

Paying attention is a matter of survival. You can see that in action on our roadways. Knowledge is also a tool for survival.

Politicans are useless to you and I, on that we can agree. Awareness of them is not useless. You can choose to ignore them if you want but remember they are responsible for the death of at least a hundred million people within the last century. Most of those didn't pay enough attention to politics to have the knowledge needed to save themselves.

And I wont? Huh?

Thus my apathy for anything political.

I think you missed my point. No matter who this country votes into office it will be more of the same. Complete bullshit.
Blame Obama, blame Clinton, Bush, Bush 2.0, ALL of them. Our political system is so fucked up it's beyond belief.

Do you think my Senator gives a flying fuck what Thomas in MN thinks? Or Torqaholic in Michigan? Blow smoke up my ass, get my vote and promptly forget about the very people that put them in office.

The system is broken, and I have NO idea what the solution is.

The system is dominated by PROGRESSIVES, who are essentially base believers in MARX, and so THAT is why the R party does literally nothing, and the D party will certainly always have enough members in the SENATE to FILLIBUSTER forever and ever amen.....so even with 59 senators and domination in the house and the PreziDENSEy there is still nothing the R's can do to repeal that 60's feel good crap....

much less Nobam's commie care.....

OR any of this EPA bullshit....

honestly, glad I"m nearly 68, I"m not going to see the end of this country, I feel sorry for my kids though, but not THAT sorry because they love the end, like to kill off their professors though....

:sadangel::shots:

I was speaking in generalities but yes, you can't prepare for something you never see coming.

We agree again.

Politics can't change the system because society has turned its back on the priciples this country was founded on. There's no acceptable solution, not everything can be fixed.

I hear the economy can limp along another 5-10 years but the failure of society need not mean my failure. Armed with this "political knowledge" I can prepare. Planting 2 apricot, 2 plum, 2 hazelnut, and 3 pecan trees this Spring. Planted 9 grape, a cherry, and 2 paw-paw trees last Spring and they're doing well. Doubled the size of my property last year and have a large garden. I've got enough fishing and hunting gear to last the rest of my life. That's my personal solution.

So it seems that Sandra Fluke is represented by the PR firm being run by Anita Dunn, former White House Communications.

It also seems that Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is deeply involved in pushing this issue to the forefront.

Is this a conspiracy being run by the Obama Administration? They started the entire controversy with the Catholic Church and this seems to be just another Chess move in the game.

While I believe that Rush's choice of words is incorrect and reprehensible, this all just has the feel of a conspiracy from the left. The deeper you dig, the more liberal, socialist bodies you'll find.

Sadly the words of George Washington, without whom this country would not exist ring loudly today:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - GW

And it may come to pass that, the we may live to see another rebellion take place in this country.

Thomas Jefferson stated: "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."

I hope to never see this and hope that my children and grandchildren do not have to bear this burden, but day by day, it seems more likely. I do not wish for it.