1 Nice religion you got there, father. Be a shame if something happened to it.

2 Gabe didn't they do this with some corporations?   Saw this coming, which is why I posted the bishop's letter the other day.

3 I would love to see a poll of Democrats as to who they think is a greater danger to America...Catholics and Christians or Muslims.

I know where I'd put my money.

4 It's cool. We'll be eaten last. Socialism 4EVA.

5 Somebody piss on me!!

6 The first political fight the national socialists had in Germany was with the German churches over eugenics. Their national socialists decried those backwards Christians for stopping the extermination of the useless eaters also.

It is interesting to watch the progression of the Left from international to national socialism since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Oh, and I suppose the real subsidies the government gives to Planned Parenthood are of no concern?

7 Where is this duchette from?

8 Personally, it might be a very good thing for the Church to forgo non-profit status. The Church would then be free to be an even more powerful voice and influence in American politics and culture. Seems I've heard "If yoiu strike me down..." somewhere before.

9 Doesn't the church support Pelosicare minus the abortion funding? If you lay down with dogs.....

10 in a way, I laugh at the Bishops for getting in the middle of this. As a Catholic, I am upset that they would even remotely support this crap in any form.

11 Next Constitution Day, let's resolve that someone, at some point during the day, punch each and every Congress Critter right in their fucking cocksucker.

12

And children are now a "legitmate surgical procedure."

This makes me want to vomit.  How can I make a campaign contribution to her 2010 opponent?

13

Lynn Woolsey had her shame chip disabled when she joined the Progressive movement.

I shouldn't say "disabled."  I should say, "reprogrammed to only feel ashamed of the United States of America."  Like all Progressives, her shame on behalf of her country is so all-consuming that she can't feel shame on her own account.

14 Bishops letter

Particularly funny that she wants to get the IRS in there.  Does she not realize that contributions are down for all churches.  so much so that this weekend the Catholic church had two readings about giving to others, two, never seen that, a record.  You know the "in the end the poor widow who gave everything she had made more of a sacrifice than the rich guy who gave from his discretionary spending".  That doesn't sound like a church with money rolling in.

15

What she doesn't get is abortion is not a political issue to the Church or to any other prolife supporter and should not expect silence or require silence from them. It is a social issue that has been made political.

16 Being ignorant is a badge of honor for these idiots.

17 She proudly describes herself as the "first former welfare mother in the Congress", gave Cindy Sheehan a press pass so she could disrupt the State of the Union speech by President Bush in 2006, was one of 8 Democrats to vote nay on a resolution to recognize the importance of Christmas and Christianity (but she did vote to recognize Ramadan and Diwali....no icky Christianist holidays for her!), and sponsored a bill to revoke the chapter of the Boy Scouts because they don't want homosexuals or atheists troop leaders.

Oh, and she represents Sonoma and Marin counties. 

Considering all that....for where she's from, she's probably considered a moderate.   

18 The "subsidy" thing is the most disturbing point of this but it'll get lost when the militant atheists whip up a flame war about the tax status of Churches.

19 "Lynn Woolsey had her shame chip disabled when she joined the Progressive freedom denying marxist movement."

FIFY.  There is nothing progressive about them.

20 Hmmm....wonder how the stock portfolios and investment of the members of congress are doing?

21 "first former welfare mother in the Congress"

Each and every member of the legislature is on Public Assistance.

22

"a perfectly legal surgical procedure"

Help me out here.

A pediatrician refers a child to a head and neck surgeon to remove chronically-infected tonsils, and that's unnecessary surgery undertaking solely for the doctor's and surgeon's profit.

A gynecologist removes a living organism from its mother's womb, and that's a perfectly legal surgical procedure that isn't subject to moral scrutiny.

How about if we look at the patient in that surgical procedure not as being the mother, but as being the fetus?  Seems like one could argue (as the former Planned Parenthood executive recently did) that the procedure was pushed by the doctor and the clinic so that they could make money by unnecessarily amputating the fetus's foot... and leg... and other leg... and arms... and head.

23

Fucking libtard logic.

If they don't tax you, they are being subsized by the public?? Who the fuck thinks that way?.

24 Gabe, had one of those days yesterday.  But, did notice a lot of hand wringing on CNBC and concern over something the supreme court was considering as regards business.   So far thought, haven't seen anything on the financial blogs.

25 Just because abortion is legal that doesn't mean it should be subsidized by Federal healthcare dollars.

Nose jobs are also legal.  So is botox.

Is Obamacare going to pay for those things as well?

As a not-irrelevant second point, in a free-market system interested parties could opt to subscribe to insurance programs that offered (or did NOT offer) coverage for abortion services as they chose.

26 so much so that this weekend the Catholic church had two readings about giving to others, two, never seen that, a record.  You know the "in the end the poor widow who gave everything she had made more of a sacrifice than the rich guy who gave from his discretionary spending".  That doesn't sound like a church with money rolling in.

curious, the Sunday readings are set on a three-year rotating cycle found in any Catholic Lectionary. They are not chosen at random or with any particularly timely message in mind. At the moment, we're in Cycle B, which means Mark's Gospel and associated readings from the epistles and Old Testament.

27 If they don't tax you, they are being subsized by the public?? Who the fuck thinks that way?.

It's not yours.  It's ours.  Hope that premise clears up any issues you may have.

28

If they don't tax you, they are being subsized by the public?? Who the fuck thinks that way?.

Someone who doesn't believe in private property. You know, fascists, maxists, socialists, progressives.

29 #22 Your perspicacity will be shortly prohibited. Thoughtcrime, ya know.

30

This is the kind of behavior I can (and did) get behind!

31 The Catholic Church is funded through donations.
Donations people already paid income taxes on.
In conclusion: SUCK IT, WOOLSEY.

32 This insidious line of thought is characteristic of Democrats, who are so twisted that they believe whatever the government forbears to take by force of law is a "subsidy" the recipient should be thankful for.

Money quote right there Gabe.  This is the thing that bothers me most about these statists, EVERYTHING belongs to the state in their mind, anything you have is at the whim of the state ( e.g. Kelo ).  The founders rpms must be approaching warp speed at this point.

33 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 10, 2009 04:31 PM (Mi2wf)

Gabe, I know what you are saying.  But my friend noticed it and then asked all of us if we remember this from last year and no one did.  A little creepy that those two readings came up back to back on the weekend that they were voting on the ehalth care thing.

34 I just love this scene.  Good times, good times.

35 By the way abortions may be "perfectly legal" but they are also fairly highly regulated. 

If you figure that abortions are significantly cheaper than completed pregnancies (not to mention subsequent child costs), perhaps they result in net healthcare dollar savings.

36 A Democrat from CA. And what's the story here? I must be missing it?

37 The worst thing politically I've seen in my lifetime is my worthless state sending people not fit to sweep streets to Washington as congressmen and women. The sight of decrepit marxist fossil George Miller with Pelosi - well lets just say that these are the people that a bankrupt socialist toilet still reveres as the architects of making it a socialist toilet. Put not your faith in this world.

38 Posted by: Naqamel at November 10, 2009 04:33 PM (UMwMT)

Wow are people just noticing stuff more or what?   A friend of mine said to me, "gee they tax my savings when I make the money and then they tax it again when I put it in savings".  (I think perhaps more people have decided to suddenly try to save and so they are seeing things they didn't see before)

39 By the way abortions may be "perfectly legal" but they are also fairly highly regulated.

First Trimester:  Anything Goes
Second Trimester:  Most things go
Third Trimester: Look!  A squirrel!

The above is mandatory for all states.

40 Umm... tax-exempt status, just like any other form of relief from what John Q Public would be expected to pay in a similar circumstance, is absolutely a subsidy. Every deduction you take on your taxes exists to subsidize the behavior that triggered the exemption (breeding, investing money in your business, etc...), especially when you consider that it's not as though gov't will decrease their spending by the amount lost via exempt status. Instead, they'll just increase everyone else's taxes, or we'll all pay for it via debt.

I don't know why churches even deserve tax-exempt status. If they lose money (as many churches do), they wouldn't owe anything. If they make money, why should they be less culpable to pay their taxes than I am as a small business owner, just because Jesus is their CEO? Is religion really a public good of such importance that it's better for society to promote it over, say, job creation, churning out a product that the market proves that people want, or expanding business?

The proper solution, of course, is to either eliminate or greatly simplify the tax code, so that a complex and expensive series of subsidies isn't necessary. I don't have any problem at all with the government not taking people's shit. I DO have a problem with government not taking people's shit and then making me cover the difference.

41 If you figure that abortions are significantly cheaper than completed pregnancies (not to mention subsequent child costs), perhaps they result in net healthcare dollar savings.

That's why we've extended abortion rights to the 275th Trimester and beyond in our new health care bill!

42 #31

I believe donations to the Church (or any non-profit organization) are tax-deductible.

So income tax, in fact, is NOT paid on them.

I think you can debate the merits of permitting religious organizations to operate as non-profits, but if you are going to single out the Catholic church for revocation, you have to do that with every other religious organization too.

In practice, this dodo-head is blowing hot air.   She can scream all she likes. . .nobody is revoking the tax-exempt status of the Church anytime soon.

43

Posted by: DMXRoid at November 10, 2009 04:39 PM (vd872)

Listen to this subject citizen.  You can learn much from him.  BWAHAHAHHAHAA.  (Did I say that out loud?).

44 wonder if she will get a nice letter from A corn, since the Catholic Church gave them ten million plus last year.

45 Gabe, I know what you are saying.  But my friend noticed it and then asked all of us if we remember this from last year and no one did.  A little creepy that those two readings came up back to back on the weekend that they were voting on the ehalth care thing.

The reason you don't remember it from last year is because last year the Sunday readings were from Cycle A.  You wouldn't remember it from the year before that either. Care to guess why?

46

Abortions are not regulated.  And there is nothing "Perfect" about them.

47 If you figure that abortions are significantly cheaper than completed pregnancies (not to mention subsequent child costs), perhaps they result in net healthcare dollar savings.

Now your talking. 

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

48 Semi OT, but consider this. Why is this issue the one place where any decision a person makes is sacrosanct? In every other facet of life, even choosing a car, there is a liberal and proper decision and an evil, conservative one. Hypothetical: As a good and true liberal citizen of the modern world, suppose person X is pregnant and wants to keep the baby; you are supposed to pat her on the back and say "Good for you, it's your right to decide." But if, the next day, she says "I want an abortion," you are obligated, with equal enthusiasm, to declare "Good for you, it's your right to decide." It's as if one were choosing to wear green or red. Even when it comes to ordering off a menu, a good and true liberal is supposed to wag a finger if someone orders beef. "Cattle use up too many resources, and it's unhealthy. You should order the tofu." But when it comes to babies, we might as well be discussing "boxers or briefs." Puzzling.

49 So income tax, in fact, is NOT paid on them.
This is true for some, but not all, donations. There is a limit to how much you can deduct from your taxes. Once you hit that limit... the rest of your donations were taxed.

50

Libtards keep your filthy hands off THE CHURCH you damned dirty apes.

51 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at November 10, 2009 04:41 PM (Mi2wf)

I'm sure that you can explain it much better than I.   Ugh, you are always right.  Anyway.  probably more to the point is that everybody I was with was talking about these readings in the context of what is going on in the world and with the church.   Now, that is new.

52 Umm... tax-exempt status, just like any other form of relief from what John Q Public would be expected to pay in a similar circumstance, is absolutely a subsidy.

Here's the deal, Comrade.  My shit is mine.  Not yours, not society's, mine.  "Tax Exempt" means what exactly?  That the cocksuckers in the fucking government has decided it's mine?  How about your house?  Do you own it?  Then why in the ever living fuck are you paying rent to the government for it in the form of property taxes?

Take your commie shit and jam it the fuck up your ass.  I AM FUCKING SICK OF SERFDOM!

53 Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

That was Eugenics Supporter Margaret Sanger's position.

Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, viewed abortion as a way to eliminate the races she felt were 'less evolved'. She was also an admirer of Hitler.

54 @42 You don't get a 100% income tax deduction, you get a partial deduction for "Charitable Giving." And Obama has already promised to end that anyway.

55 I too would like to revisit the tax-exempt status of the Secretary of the Treasury

56 wonder if she will get a nice letter from A corn, since the Catholic Church gave them ten million plus last year.

I didn't hear her bitching about churches that support amnesty/open borders, either.

57 "The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections." Hmm. What's the tax exempt status of T.U.C.C. in Chicago, again? Guess it's pretty much entirely non-restrictive in any areas, at least sometimes....

58 ``Gabe, I know what you are saying.  But my friend noticed it and then asked all of us if we remember this from last year and no one did.''

To repeat what Gabriel said: the Lectionary is on a three-year cycle.  This is Cycle B; Cycle C will start with the First Sunday of Advent, Cycle A at Advent of 2010, and B will come round again late in 2011. 

It's a big Bible, and the Lectionary takes three years to cover all of it. 

59 Umm... tax-exempt status, just like any other form of relief from what John Q Public would be expected to pay in a similar circumstance, is absolutely a subsidy.

Because everything comes from the government, belongs to the government, and what you have you're allowed to keep solely at the forbearance of the government.

60 Huh, how about all those inner city congregations with high melanin content that tend to go 100 percent Democratic with lots of ACORN front groups hanging around. Damn shame the IRS will never get the balls to go after them.

61 Sure let's stop these religious "subsidies".  Let's start with mosques for the first decade and see how it works out.

62 54 @42 You don't get a 100% income tax deduction, you get a partial deduction for "Charitable Giving." And Obama has already promised to end that anyway.

After Obama the only charity will be the Federal Government.

63

I don't have any problem at all with the government not taking people's shit

See, I have a huge problem with it. Particularly my shit so I want them taking the absolute minimum.

64 Hey how about that buddist temple Gore left with a bag full of cash?

65
After Obama the only charity will be the Federal Government.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks

^
Give that man a cigar!

66 All your base cash are belong to us.

67 "Posted by: curious at November 10, 2009 04:24 PM (p302b)" Our church goes on a one-year cycle, and we have those readings every year about now. This Sunday (or some Sunday between Halloween and Thanksgiving) is always "Stewardship Sunday," which is sort of like our own pledge drive, without the t-shirts, coffee cups and autographed copies of "Lake Woebegone Days." I have to always remind myself not to invite any guests over to church until Advent season starts.

68 Seriously, my back is killing me. No more straws or shit is gonna get weird.

69 If the gubbermint gets pissy, can't the Catholic church just summarily shut down all the hospitals they run, you know, the ones on the minority neighborhoods that help the poor?

And didn't they, in fact, say they would do this if they were forced to do abortions?

70 Sure let's stop these religious "subsidies".  Let's start with mosques for the first decade and see how it works out.

No, let's start in areas that have the most need for tax dollars. Areas where the infrastructure is critically eroded, safety services are strained, education is sub-par, and the costs of social services are skyrocketing.

That's right -- let's remove the tax exempt status from inner-city churches!

71 And didn't they, in fact, say they would do this if they were forced to do abortions?

Yes, and to their credit, they weren't kidding. As a Catholic myself, I fully support the Church on this one.

72
It's always am adept political move to take on an organization with 70 million members in this country.And with the exception of the abortion issue the Catholic Church supports many Democratic causes including immigration.

73 I would be all for them "investigating" the tax exempt status of churches that engage in political activity as long as they do it in an even-handed manner to ALL churches.  When they start "investigating" all these black churches like the one one that The Won attended for 20 years I'll consider it fair play.

And a whole lot of the Morons here evidently don't not the difference between "tax exempt" and qualification for charitable.  Those are separate categories folks. Not all non-profit organizations also qualify as one that you can give tax deductable donations to.

And one gripe I do have with the "tax exempt" status of churches is not so much their income from "donations" since I find those to be "not income", but their local property tax exemption.  The town that I live near has at least one huge church in every city block and some blocks have two.  These are complete with huge parking lots. I would say that, on average, they have > 10,000 sq ft buildings sitting on 5 acre lots that they pay not a nickle in city or county taxes on.  yet they use the same services as everyone else.  This makes everyone else's taxes go up.

74

Let me get this straight.  The Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center will keep its tax-exempt status, but the Catholic Church will lose theirs?

Looks like the Catholics haven't killed enough US troops this week.

 

75
What does Stupak have to say about all this? Anyone have his comments, if any, about what He-She Tranny Shultz (D-FLA) said about stripping the ammendment out of the final bill?

76 No, let's start in areas that have the most need for tax dollars. Areas where the infrastructure is critically eroded, safety services are strained, education is sub-par, and the costs of social services are skyrocketing.

That's right -- let's remove the tax exempt status from inner-city churches! America!

FIFY

77 Representative Woolsey should be ashamed of herself.

Puuuhlease.

78 This kind of thought is also while liberals say cutting taxes is bad. They think cutting taxes will cut into their revenue and tax cuts are really the gov't "lending" you money that doesn't belong to you. In reality it IS your money. They just don't want to give it up.

79 Doesn't the church support Pelosicare minus the abortion funding? If you lay down with dogs....

I was just thinking the same. Catholic Church signed away its Social Justice soul when it demanded government provide for their unionized charity.

In the future Catholic Church, when you are seeking government goodies to do your charity work for you remember:

 
"Universal" means everything;  'working families' and those souls growing inside life-giving wombs.

80

Try it, libs.  Wishy-washy Catholics were a big election-year boost to assholes like Obama and the rest of the Democrat-Socialists.  Kick the church in the nuts and then watch in horror as the Church takes the kid gloves off and fights back.

I can guarantee that a big chunk of those swing Catholic voters will vote "R" instead of "D" next time around.

The Church, at least in my diocese, bends over backwards to stay out of the political arena while socialist outfits like Planned Parenthood and ACORN - who are tax-exempt AND get funds from the government - are nothing but Democrat front companies.

Screw Woolsey and the Mao Tse Tung she rode in on.

 

81 can't the Catholic church just summarily shut down all the hospitals they run, you know, the ones on the minority neighborhoods that help the poor?

I hope not, because that's what the gov't-run-healthcare people want to happen--look!  People need gov't-run healthcare because they can't get it anywhere else!

82 I support Federal funding of all abortions.

As long as there is a 9 month waiting period.

83 <i>That's right -- let's remove the tax exempt status from inner-city churches!</i>

They'd limp along somehow just on renting the room out to ACORN and politicians.

84 Democrat/liberal definition of a "subsidy";

Any tax deduction, tax credit, legal protection, or legitimate business expense that we do not like.

85 These are complete with huge parking lots. I would say that, on average, they have > 10,000 sq ft buildings sitting on 5 acre lots that they pay not a nickle in city or county taxes on.  yet they use the same services as everyone else.  This makes everyone else's taxes go up.

Churches pay their water and sewer bills, which are the most expensive of the "public services".  (They're not really public services.  They're ineptly run monopolies.  Only the government could manage to lose money as a monopolist. And let the essential infrastructure for delivering that monopoly service turn to shit without complaint.)

86 Why are people acting as though I'm coming from a pro-tax position? I explicitly said that I think that we should eliminate taxes. I just think it's bullshit that the government subsidizes ANY behavior, be it religion, breeding, whatever. When it does that, it's using my money to prop up someone else's preferences and behavior.

I like people keeping their money/property. They earned it, they should have the only decision over how it gets spent. That doesn't mean that I like being forced, by the government, to pay for someone else getting to keep their cash. If I want to support a church, I'll donate to them. If I want to support a business, I'll buy their product. If not, I won't. The last thing I want is the government giving people a free ride and then taking my money, either via taxation or inflation, to support that ride. Tax subsidies are no different than straight cash payments - they're welfare. I don't like welfare, be the recipient a dumbass teenage girl who couldn't find her way to the abortion clinic, Exxon, or a church.

87 If you figure that abortions are significantly cheaper than completed pregnancies (not to mention subsequent child costs), perhaps they result in net healthcare dollar savings.

Posted by: looking closely at November 10, 2009 04:37 PM (6Q9g2) -

Not sure where you're coming from on this but it sounds like you're putting a price on something (human life) that, to me, is priceless.

88 "82 I support Federal funding of all abortions.

As long as there is a 9 month waiting period.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at November 10, 2009 04:59 PM (IqfKc)"

This is the best post...

89 Note to my beautiful self:  Talk to Woolsey about the Church Czar slot.

90 I'm not sure about churches, but non-profit, 501(c)3's can in fact advocate or lobby on an issue, as long as these activities are not a major portion of their activities.

What they can't do is campaign for a candidate or political party. I'm on the boards of some non-profs, so I know that.

91 I just think it's bullshit that the government subsidizes ANY behavior, be it religion, breeding, whatever. When it does that, it's using my money to prop up someone else's preferences and behavior.

Bullshit.  Your money is yours.  Not a public commodity.  Your assumption that "failure to tax" = "subsidy" is what drew fire.  And deservedly so.  Break that fucking mindset.

92

Vic, the children that attend Catholic church have parents who pay taxes for the Public schools.  They are SUBSIDIZING AMERICAN FAILURES.  Right?

Churches don't use all services.  They don't use STD clinics, they don't have children that need to be schooled.  They don't get welfare or foodstamps.

The government had ENOUGH money, keep your fucking hands off of the church

93

DMXasshole, do yourself a favor and google Exxon Taxes.
Then fuck yourself.

94 Wait, y'all are missing the point, almost ALL tax-exempt charities lobby Congress for various legislation and the ultra liberal ones are the worst.  Let's yank the tax-exempt status for the Sierra Club, NOW and PLANNED PARENTHOOD first!

95 91 - "Bullshit. Your money is yours. Not a public commodity. Your assumption that "failure to tax" = "subsidy" is what drew fire. And deservedly so. Break that fucking mindset." ----- Failure to tax when every other instance of the un-taxed behavior in a society IS taxed is a subsidy. If I take 10% of everyone's income EXCEPT for someone who's wearing a priest's collar, or who sells oil, I'm going out of my way to advantage the priest and oil salesman (or car salesman, or car company, or failed bank, or outdated journalism delivery medium) as compared to the rest of society. And, since we live in a country where the government refuses to exhibit anything resembling fiscal discipline, when the state inevitably deficit spends, racks up debt, and decreases the value of the currency in my bank account, I and every other person/entity that does get taxed am forced to pay for it.

96 Anyone watching Beck?  Sheesh, so he is targeting the age group that boted for him?  They will carry the burden of the new health care bill?  So, eventually they will start to hate their parents.  The jusge is saying they won't buy insurance, they will pay the fine and what a mess...what a total mess.

97 93 - "DMXasshole, do yourself a favor and google Exxon Taxes. Then fuck yourself."

Yes, Exxon pays a FUCK ton in taxes. It's criminal how much of their revenue goes towards taxation every year. More than the GDP of lots of countries. And they shouldn't. I'm not defending the current tax code. I hate all taxes. They're ALL theft.

Explain to me how this view is inconsistent with the idea that areas of society, or organizations, with a large amount of political clout, shouldn't be advantaged by the force of law over (potentially) its competitors, and people who choose to do business in other industries?

98 What I want to know here is why do they feel the need to invade everything, examine everything, touch everything.  ruin everything.  If something is working, let it work.  Why tweak it until it doesn't work?   GWB felt that Churches were doing a great job with the little money they have.  Maybe instead of looking at them to take from them they should look at them and see how they run their schools and hospitals with way less money than other schools and hospitals and turn out a better product in the end.

99 Well said, Gabe.

100 When you find a car salesman, oil salesman, or priest that isn't taxed, let me know.  I want to know their secrets.

Until then, you're talking out your ass.  Failure to tax is not a subsidy.  If it is, then we live in a totalitarian nation.  And if we do, what the fuck is your solution?   Bitch some more that the country is unfairly totalitarian?

Make your choice.

101

You know, when Clancy's Jack Ryan speaks to America as they are about to vote in a totally new batch of congressmen and senators, he pleads with them. Don't send me politicians and lawyers. Send me dr.'s and plumbers teachers and electricians and firemen... Oh well, I can dream can't I?

102 100 - "When you find a car salesman, oil salesman, or priest that isn't taxed, let me know. I want to know their secrets."

When you come up with a reason why I should have to pay out more of my fucking money because you decide to have kids, or because you have to pay off your student loans, or because someone wants to call their business a church or a school, or because GMAC has buddies at the Treasury department, let me know. I'd love to hear the compelling argument why my tax rates should be higher because I'm smart and don't shoot out a rat every 18 months, and I was smart enough to avoid loans, or because I'm single, or whatever the case may be. Providing a tax subsidy for a certain behavior is functionally identical to penalizing me for NOT engaging in that behavior. Why is it OK for you to steal from me?

103

Yo, congreSS scrunt,

Come and take it. I will die on that hill. Fuck you.

104 When you come up with a reason why I should have to pay out more of my fucking money because you decide to have kids, or because you have to pay off your student loans, or because someone wants to call their business a church or a school, or because GMAC has buddies at the Treasury department, let me know. I'd love to hear the compelling argument why my tax rates should be higher because I'm smart and don't shoot out a rat every 18 months, and I was smart enough to avoid loans, or because I'm single, or whatever the case may be. Providing a tax subsidy for a certain behavior is functionally identical to penalizing me for NOT engaging in that behavior. Why is it OK for you to steal from me?

First, prove that "I have to pay out more of my fucking money".  Then prove that I'm stealing from you.  Then discuss it with your congressman.  When you're done there, see if you can still afford a clue.  If you can't, go fuck yourself.  It's free.

105

Is she one of the ones under investigation by the ethics committee?  It's so hard to distinguish the crooks from the idiots without a scorecard, and some play on both teams.

106 Here's the thing, DMX.  You're entire premise begins with "What am I allowed to keep", rather than "What is mine"?  Your entire line of bullshit is the very attitude that feeds the behemoth government.  Why do you give a fuck what others DON'T HAVE TO PAY?  That's just class warfare, or some assumption of victimhood on your part, rather than righteous indignation that the government is too fucking big and intrusive.

107 I say to her, BRING IT. We don't fear the gates of Hell, why would we be afraid of this pissant clown?

Sad thing is, though, the idiot liberal wing of the Catholic Church probably agrees with her. I wish it would've been an even swap with the Anglicans so we could have handed all our hippies over to them. (No offense to our Anglican/Episcopalian morons, I know if you post here, you are not the hippie kind.)

108 Me keeping more of what I work for is not a 'subsidy'. An advantaage, sure, unfair, probably, a subsidy, no way. If this is unclear, please see HM at 105 again.

109 Posted by: Angry Beaver at November 10, 2009 05:39 PM (AsEil)

Surprise, the Pope just did something to make it easier for Anglicans and Episcopalians to come on over to the Catholic Church.  I'll try and find the article I saw.  Been really really busy and preoccupied lately or I would ahve posted that article.

110 105 - "First, prove that "I have to pay out more of my fucking money". Then prove that I'm stealing from you. Then discuss it with your congressman. When you're done there, see if you can still afford a clue. If you can't, go fuck yourself. It's free."

Tax policy is not set without paying attention to spending and revenue requirements. Subsidies decrease revenues, meaning that the government, whether I want it to or not, will make up that difference either via increasing my tax rates directly, or decreasing the value of my money via the inflation that accompanies deficit spending. Therefore, subsidies increase the tax burden of everyone not subsidized. Tax exemptions and credits do the same thing. How much more revenue would be collected if you didn't get like an extra 5 grand per cunt maggot? I don't breed, I don't get that credit, I still pay for the fact that people do take the credit.

Furthermore, I think there's probably something to the idea that the complexity of the tax code makes it less obvious just how bad the state's fucking you. If you get 10k off one year because you blew a couple of irresponsible loads, you're gonna be a lot less pissed than you would if you had to cough that money up. Sort of the same way withholding does.

My congressman is a far left Dem. You think he gives a shit that I think my taxes are too high, that they decrease the quality of my life and prevent me from hiring and expanding my business? No, of course not. And even if he did, wtf would that change? Why am I required to appeal to some fucking authority figure to be able to keep what's rightfully mine?

111

When you come up with a reason why I should have to pay out more of my fucking money because you decide to have kids, or because you have to pay off your student loans, or because someone wants to call their business a church or a school, or because GMAC has buddies at the Treasury department, let me know.

Maybe you can move to that fantasy place where its everyman for themself and utopia exists.  And why should I pay for taxes to have fireman ready to protect your home if I don't also have a home for them to protect? Why should I have to pay taxes for road repair for you to drive on if I don't drive?  Why should I have to pay taxes for a military if I'm a pacifist? etc etc.

Some taxes and some deductions are necessary for the general welfare of the country. Granted some are not.

 

112

I'd rather enjoy a progressive challenge to the Catholic Church.  2010 ain't that far away, and just maybe, just maybe, the GOP would investigate all that "illegal"  election day busing, and year round campaigning at every African American church in these United States.

Might even turn up a few more ACORN connections.

113 yet they use the same services as everyone else.  This makes everyone else's taxes go up.

How many people do you think live in a church?

In addition, I am on the finance council at our church and it had a 50% charitable rate from the church to the community.  This does not include the volunteerism by its members.  This makes taxes in the community STAY DOWN.

114 Earlier today I posted about the website that requested a log of visitors to a particular site.  The response was to tell me what they did and how they were involved and what that meant.  However, if they are required to hand over all the IP's of visitors then every website will be required to do so.  This is an issue and I know people here thought it wasn't but it is, they far over reached.

115 Rep. Woolsey should be retroactively aborted.

116 106 Here's the thing, DMX. You're entire premise begins with "What am I allowed to keep", rather than "What is mine"? Your entire line of bullshit is the very attitude that feeds the behemoth government. Why do you give a fuck what others DON'T HAVE TO PAY? That's just class warfare, or some assumption of victimhood on your part, rather than righteous indignation that the government is too fucking big and intrusive. No, my entire premise is, government is an evil group of motherfuckers, and are gonna take their pound of flesh no matter what I do. They have all the guns (well, not all of them, but I don't think that I'd be able to hold off more than a meter maid or so with what I've got). They decide how much of my shit they're going to steal, I have little to no input on the matter. I pay a shitload of taxes right now. It's indisputable that MY tax burden would be less were it not for the complex series of subsidies, credits, and exemptions. Explain to me why a church or a large company or some bullshit "green energy" firm should be privileged by the threat of force, simply because they're politically connected, and I'm just a guy running a business.

117 Oh an seeing this one and Maxine, don't feel so bad for California anymore.  They elect these people, then they deserve what they get.

Also, how come they are allowing the guys who made the mess in the mortgage business to introduce bills now to "fix it"?

118 First, DMX, I'm sorry that you're so oppressed by the "breeders".  We'll avoid sending Christmas cards with the kids' pictures enclosed so as to not offend your tender sensibilities wallet.  (Especially Christmas cards.  They might be tax exempt) Perhaps a piece of ass would help you out.  Look for one at the local bus stop.

Second, your revenue/spending talk makes you a wonk, not a thinker.  The worst President for this country, from a fiscal standpoint, was Reagan, because his tax cuts led to a doubling of tax revenues, and a tripling of the size of government.  He didn't cut nearly deep enough, obviously.

Third, it's amazing how envious you are.  You are a sick puppy who has not taken the time to go fuck yourself, as I advised previously.

119 It's indisputable that MY tax burden would be less were it not for the complex series of subsidies, credits, and exemptions. Explain to me why a church or a large company or some bullshit "green energy" firm should be privileged by the threat of force, simply because they're politically connected, and I'm just a guy running a business.

Posted by: DMXRoid at November 10, 2009 05:51 PM (vd872)

Sure, as soon as you explain calling me a thief a few comments back. And you did.

120 96 ~ curious
 
Didn't vote for Obama, and I'm getting older by the day.  Schadenfreude, table for one, right over here!  (Ok, maybe for two if curious wants to join me...)
 

121 for the life of me i cannot figure out why other women wouldn't mind gvt involved in our family planning decisions in any way.

122 for the life of me i cannot figure out why other women wouldn't mind gvt involved in our family planning decisions in any way.

Posted by: willow at November 10, 2009 05:55 PM (GkYyh)

Works in China. What's the prob, Toots?

123

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Government cannot become more entangled with the church, for better or worse.

And Woolsey is truly shamefully ignorant, an embarassment to our country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124

I just think it's bullshit that the government subsidizes ANY behavior, be it religion, breeding, whatever.

Breeding? Unless you're talking about breeding horses, I call "lefty" on your ass.

125 111 Maybe you can move to that fantasy place where its everyman for themself and utopia exists. And why should I pay for taxes to have fireman ready to protect your home if I don't also have a home for them to protect? Why should I have to pay taxes for road repair for you to drive on if I don't drive? Why should I have to pay taxes for a military if I'm a pacifist? etc etc.

Some taxes and some deductions are necessary for the general welfare of the country. Granted some are not.

Well, there's a difference between who uses what services, and how revenue is collected, but in general, I'd argue that no, you shouldn't be forced to pay for public fire departments or public roads. Even if you're going to pretend as though those are necessary government-managed services (which they aren't, but I'm sure that brand of libertarianism/anarchism will just start a whole new ball of shit rolling), it's not technically infeasible to attach the payment for those services to their consumption. Fire department service is easy, and as for roads, there's been a lot of work done on the use of anonymized crypto protocols to determine road usage and charge based on that.

Explain to me why deductions and subsidies are necessary for the functioning of a society. Why isn't it better to have the law treat everyone the same, regardless of how they choose to make a living?

126

Take away the tax-exempt status of Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the rest of the corrupt leftist advocacy groups and you got a deal, Congresswoman.

*crickets chirping*

What can one expect from the morally-impaired Bay Area?  That said, don't blame all Californians.  There are lots of sane people here, but not enough to counter the big-city halfwits.  The districts are gerrymandered to keep the decent folk from voting in anyone with half a brain cell.

127 DMXRoid, I would be more than happy to end all the costly suffering you do by subsidizing my apparently unacceptable "breeding" habit....if you would be willing to carry all the costs for your future retirement on your stately shoulders instead of passing it on to my kids.  After all, they're gonna be lucky to have anything left after the nearly decade-long spending orgy that's been going on....

Deal?

(Why do I think he/she/it is gonna ignore this question?)

128

Breeding? Unless you're talking about breeding horses, I call "lefty" on your ass.

Posted by: flenser at November 10, 2009 05:57 PM (YbapH)

You late to the party, flenser.  I called him a commie a while back... And his underlying philosophy is. 

129 127 DMXRoid, I would be more than happy to end all the costly suffering you do by subsidizing my apparently unacceptable "breeding" habit....if you would be willing to carry all the costs for your future retirement on your stately shoulders instead of passing it on to my kids. After all, they're gonna be lucky to have anything left after the nearly decade-long spending orgy that's been going on....

Deal?

(Why do I think he/she/it is gonna ignore this question?) Absolutely. Your kids shouldn't have to pay for my retirement. If I'm not forward thinking enough to plan for it myself, I should be forced to rely on private charity, or, failing that, die. I'm the only one responsible for my own material condition. That's what being a fucking adult means.

130 Herr, exactly! terrifying!

131

I don't know why churches even deserve tax-exempt status. If they lose money (as many churches do), they wouldn't owe anything. If they make money, why should they be less culpable to pay their taxes than I am as a small business owner, just because Jesus is their CEO?

Most churches' only revenue is donations.  Without the ability to deduct contributions from their income tax, few would donate.  Without donations to these charities people would be well and truly dependent on the government, more than they are now.  And maybe the people who donate (money thry have already paid taxes on) don't want their money going to the government.  Ever think of that?

The first 501(3)C corporation to lose their tax exempt status should be  Rainbow Push and whatever that thing Al Sharpton scams with.  It has been proven through their 990s that they distribute very little to the people they claim to help.  I guess if the IRS gives tax exempt status for race baiting then these scumballs are very successful.  Actually they are even more successful in the money they extort and blackmail from corporations they scam.

Democrats are such liars.  I'm sure that any black church this b**ch attended during her campaign totally was in her court and campaigned openly for her and every other democrat on the ballot.  Black churches are notorious for doing this with no repercussions.  If a white church did the same thing, the IRS would come down on them like a ton of bricks.  Some people are more equal than others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

86 I don't like welfare, be the recipient a dumbass teenage girl who couldn't find her way to the abortion clinic, Exxon, or a church.

Is Exxon performing abortions now? That's almost as disturbing as a church doing them.

133 heck, breeding? isn't that a delightful term.

134 Breeding? Unless you're talking about breeding horses, I call "lefty" on your ass.

Not quite a complete answer, flenser.  More like "some guy who got banned for life from the Berkeley Bowl". 

135

When you come up with a reason why I should have to pay out more of my fucking money because you decide to have kids,

I can come up with several reasons. Because you need workers for your business. Because you need customers for your business. Because those workers and customers are created for you by the "breeders".

136 You guys missed the major intent of my post. I speaking strictly to local property taxes when between 5 and 10 acres of every city block has tax exempt churches on it there is a huge difference.

And yes there are services they pay for such as water and sewer but how about fire and police?

I just think that when it reaches that point it is an abuse and when abuses occur things change.

137 Hey, Lynn, keep fucking that golden goose called Pelosicare.

138 118 First, DMX, I'm sorry that you're so oppressed by the "breeders". We'll avoid sending Christmas cards with the kids' pictures enclosed so as to not offend your tender sensibilities wallet. (Especially Christmas cards. They might be tax exempt) Perhaps a piece of ass would help you out. Look for one at the local bus stop.

No, that's OK, your mother is coming by tonight to clean out my pipes.

I don't have tender sensibilites. I just don't like kids, think that people have too many of them, and am irritated that the quality of my life is decreased in lots of ways because other people force me to bear the burden for their spawn. I can't do drugs, I can't see a titty on TV without paying for it, I have to pay for public schools via my property taxes, child safety anythign, etc...

Second, your revenue/spending talk makes you a wonk, not a thinker. The worst President for this country, from a fiscal standpoint, was Reagan, because his tax cuts led to a doubling of tax revenues, and a tripling of the size of government. He didn't cut nearly deep enough, obviously.

I've always thought that the Laffer Curve was the worst argument for tax reductions. Tax cuts are good. Tax cuts that invisibly defer the cost of bigger government for decades until the loan payments catch up with us are not.

Third, it's amazing how envious you are. You are a sick puppy who has not taken the time to go fuck yourself, as I advised previously.

What am I envious of?

139

I'm the only one responsible for my own material condition. That's what being a fucking adult means.

Great. You won't mind if we ship your ass off to a deserted island n the middle of the Pacific then. There you can be responsible for your own material conditions without anyone leeching off you to your hearts content.

140 This bitch should have joined the Stasi...

141 You guys are so disgusting

142

Democrats are such liars.  I'm sure that any black church this b**ch attended during her campaign totally was in her court and campaigned openly for her and every other democrat on the ballot.  Black churches are notorious for doing this with no repercussions.  If a white church did the same thing, the IRS would come down on them like a ton of bricks.  Some people are more equal than others.

Posted by: BarbaraS at November 10, 2009 06:01 PM (yqqXm)

Not that there are that many Black churches in Woolsey's district, but I bet the ones that are there were very much in favor of California's Prop. 8 to re-ban gay marriage.  I don't know if she expressed any resentment toward them, though I believe she had some harsh words for the Mormons.

143 Wonder what lunch is like for her and maxine and wasserman.  Sheesh to be a fly on the wall and watch the amazons operate.   These are the same broads who call upon their gender protections in a unfair way.

144 And for "tax deductions" for government privileged behavior while at the same time they tax excessively behaviour they consider bad, including making too much money, I would call a violation of the 14th amendment.

What we should be doing for income tax is a flat 15% tax on ALL sources of income by ALL individual people. Following that government budget should be limited to that amount of income.

I would provide for an exemption for that during a period of a declared war, provided which that debt was paid for by special assessment after the war in which ALL of the special assessment went to pay off the debt only and the assessment was automatically terminated when the debt was paid.

145 I just don't like kids, think that people have too many of them, and am irritated that the quality of my life is decreased in lots of ways because other people force me to bear the burden for their spawn.

Leaving the crack about my late sainted mother aside, this comment speaks volumes.  "I think that people have too many of them".  OK, you hate kids.

When you prove that "other people force me to bear the burden for their spawn", I'll believe you.  But you can't, because it's a lie you have told yourself because you hate kids.  And puppies.  And pussy.

Oh.  And go fuck yourself, troll.

146

some people would fit right in china. without be able to choose which  kids  if any. although i don't know if they give out porn anyhouroftheday.

147 What am I envious of?

Posted by: DMXRoid at November 10, 2009 06:04 PM (vd872)

Heterosexuals?

148

I just don't like kids, think that people have too many of them, and am irritated that the quality of my life is decreased in lots of ways because other people force me to bear the burden for their spawn.

Too bad nobody gave that speech to your parents.

149 heck and to think a daughter of mine might grow up to "breed" with one such as this. gah

150 I bet my neighbor's second grade kid , who DMXroid seems to despise, donates more to charity than he does. Just a guess.

151 What we should be doing for income tax is a flat 15% tax on ALL sources of income by ALL individual people.

15% is WAY, WAY too much.  3-4%.  Starve that motherfucker.  DoD is the only thing of Constitutional consequence they do, and they piss away more money than any nation can afford.  Kill it all.  Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Security.  Take them behind the barn and shoot them in the head.  Nuke them from orbit just to be sure.

It's the only sane choice, if you look at the books.

152 You guys missed the major intent of my post. I speaking strictly to local property taxes when between 5 and 10 acres of every city block has tax exempt churches on it there is a huge difference.

We didn't miss your point, I personally don't think you have thought it through.  Having a church in a town or city does not cause less people to live there, and if it did, less taxes would be needed to serve them.  If you wanted to go out on a economic philosophical limb, you could say churches should be built on less valuable land instead of a nice office building, but land values change and the church probably was initially built on less valuable land.  Plus churches usually raise property values surrounding them due to community involvement.

And yes there are services they pay for such as water and sewer but how about fire and police?

Church officials pay income taxes also, not to mention sales taxes, etc. etc.

153 DMXRoid, so....that means you aren't gonna march down to Social Security the minute you are eligible to get that government check?  Or demand a senior discount at Denny's on the early bird special? 

Oh, and please use "fucking" in your answer at least ten times.  Because we all know that someone can't answer a serious question without using the word at least five times in a post.

154 145 - When you prove that "other people force me to bear the burden for their spawn", I'll believe you. But you can't, because it's a lie you have told yourself because you hate kids. And puppies. And pussy.

Property taxes that pay for public schools. Taxes on my cigarettes. The offset that I end up covering from child-related tax deductions. The regulatory cost of all the "think of the children" laws on the book. I can't gamble on the internet. I can't buy weed without risking jail time. I can keep going, if you'd like.

155 Oh, and please use "fucking" in your answer at least ten times.  Because we all know that someone can't answer a serious question without using the word at least five times in a post.

Hey!!  I resemble that fucking remark!!

156 I think DMXroid is saving up to buy one of those properties in that long ago proposed Ron Paul commune.

157 If I may jump in the middle of your tax fight to add one thought...

Flat tax.

Thanks.

158 You're right, Herr. 

The difference is I don't think you live in your mama's basement, because you aren't going off about how much money you have to pay to see breasts on TV.  I'm guessing you can see them in person on a regular basis. 

159 Property taxes that pay for public schools. Taxes on my cigarettes. The offset that I end up covering from child-related tax deductions. The regulatory cost of all the "think of the children" laws on the book. I can't gamble on the internet. I can't buy weed without risking jail time. I can keep going, if you'd like.

Posted by: DMXRoid at November 10, 2009 06:16 PM (vd872)

What gambling while baked have to do with it, I know fuck all.  But isn't it interesting that people with kids also pay property taxes?  Funny that, even when they don't use the public schools, like those awful Christer Homeschoolers or those nasty Papists that send their kids to St SomeoneTheHorriblyDismembered School.  And those "think of the children laws"?  You haven't felt the wrath of them if you're jacking off in your grandma's basement.  When you have kids, then you understand.

Go fuck yourself.  Then try again, douchenozzle.

160 I'm guessing you can see them in person on a regular basis. 
Posted by: bigpinkfluffybunny at November 10, 2009 06:20 PM (KWhJd

Indeed.  The solstices are regular.  Hopefully the kids will be asleep again.

161 157 If I may jump in the middle of your tax fight to add one thought...

Flat tax.

Thanks.

No, Thank you,Thread Killer.

162

we can argue the gvt, isn't efficient and is in Our collective rear-ends, yet breeders? spawn?

 

163 If I may jump in the middle of your tax fight to add one thought...

Flat tax.

From dollar number one.

164 DMXRoid, so....that means you aren't gonna march down to Social Security the minute you are eligible to get that government check? Or demand a senior discount at Denny's on the early bird special?

Oh, and please use "fucking" in your answer at least ten times. Because we all know that someone can't answer a serious question without using the word at least five times in a post. Wahh wahhh, foul language makes your cunt bleed. Pop in a tampon and shut the fuck up.

Social security will be broke by the time I'm eligible, and I don't eat at Denny's (although Seniors menus are an example of VOLUNTARY assistance to the elderly [and a realization that old people eat less, come at off-peak hours, etc...]). Even if SS were going to be good till 2050 or whenever I finally become old enough, I likely won't collect. Principle, bitches.

I like how your strategy is to attack me for leeching off your kids when I get old, and then attack me for saying that I won't leech off your kids when I get old. That's slick.

165 The Church survived Nero.  I don't think it will be concerned about Lynn Woolsey.

166 I've come to the conclusion that the "progressives" are just plain evil. They seem to enjoy death and carnage and are put off by charity, love, faith, and honor. Every thing they do is geared toward opression, death, and hate.

167

Posted by: DMXRoid at November 10, 2009 06:24 PM (vd872)

Actually, our strategy is to attack you for being a douchebag.

Even if SS were going to be good till 2050 or whenever I finally become old enough

Obviously, it won't be there.  And obviously, you are very young, and still have a socialist view of our economy that was plugged into your head by union teachers who will never have to worry about their retirement.

Oh.  And go fuck yourself.

168

Dagny,

as we've read in much of the information coming from the Liberals lately, Ginsberg, Holder and such some lives are Just way More Worthy, than others.

169 From dollar number one.

Sure but no home mortgage interest deductions, no per kid credit, no EITC, no nothing. And everybody pays.

When people actually had to start paying that shit, you'd see the cry go up for spending and taxes to be cut pretty damn fast.

Right now too many people (at the bottom ) aren't paying enough and getting too much out. They have no incentive to see taxes or spending cut. Time to rebalance the system.

Of course, you can add that to the list of things that will never happen.

170 List of people's taxes to look into:
1. Tim Geithner
2. Charlie Rangle
3. Chris Dodd
4. Lynn Woolsey
........

#6735438.   The Catholic Church.

We got it on the list Rep. Woolsey, we'll get right on it.

171 The "douchette" is my congressional representative. She was a welfare mom who ran for city council in the city of Petaluma. Decades ago, there was a very popular California state senator named Bill Filante. He was an MD, a really smart guy, with a huge approval rating across party lines. Woolsey was drafted by the county Democrat party to run against Filante because nobody else wanted to. Filante was a shoo-in. A couple of months before the election, Filante had a massive stroke. No one knew if he was going to be able to go through with the election. About a month before the election, he said he was still going to run. The poor guy had trouble talking and walking from the stroke. The guy he had defeated in the Republican primary decided to get back in the race as an independent. Most people had no confidence that Filante was up to the job. The Republican vote was split, Woolsey won. She dug into the job like a rat into a wheel of cheese. She's been dedicated to commie causes ever since. She is a soulmate of that commie Berkeley congresswoman, Barbara Lee.

172 The Founders avoided universal suffrage for a reason.

173
Sure but no home mortgage interest deductions, no per kid credit, no EITC, no nothing. And everybody pays.

When people actually had to start paying that shit, you'd see the cry go up for spending and taxes to be cut pretty damn fast.

Bingorino.  I'd actually like to go back to quarterly bills.  You get a bill for your taxes, and have to cut the check.  Even those who pay little would get shit in their throat when a bill for a grand comes every 3 months.

174 DrewM has came in on exactly my point. And Herr, I would love for it to be as low as you said, but it would never work at that low a rate.

Anyway, it is time for me to go for tonight. I'll check the thread for comments early tomorrow morning.

Goodnight Morons.

175 This is how it starts, first the threats, then when that doesn't work, bast up a few people, when that doesn't work... The Democrats are really good at intimidation and threats. Right after the Civil War they formed their KKK to take care of white political opponents.

176 I'd actually like to go back to quarterly bills.

I've worked for myself for over 15 years so I'm not sure what the "go back to" is of you speak of.

If people had to write the checks it would be a very different ballgame.

177 The fascists are moving with bold abandon and they must be stopped. Let's hope we still have some enough courageous senators, regardless of party, to stop this march to Marxism, communism, and fascism.

178 What gambling while baked have to do with it, I know fuck all.

The ban on internet gambling was definitely a "save the chirren" bill. That's what they said when they passed it. Drug war is half "fuck the poor" and half "think of the chirren", but I think I can still chalk it into the "think of the chirren" category.

But isn't it interesting that people with kids also pay property taxes? Funny that, even when they don't use the public schools, like those awful Christer Homeschoolers or those nasty Papists that send their kids to St SomeoneTheHorriblyDismembered School.

Yes, forcing anyone to pay for something they don't use is wrong. Homeschoolers and private schoolers shouldn't be forced to pay for a clearly inferior product that they won't use. It's a dick move on the government's part. Set aside the fact that public education is pretty much a failed institution, even if it worked, people who choose not to use it shouldn't be forced to foot the bill.

And those "think of the children laws"? You haven't felt the wrath of them if you're jacking off in your grandma's basement. When you have kids, then you understand.

Ahh, yes, the old "You'd understand if you had kids" argument. What would I understand, exactly? Why would having kids make me think that using the threat of force to prevent a titty from showing up on prime time TV is a good idea? Would having a kid mean that I'm automatically incapable of teaching them the real pros and cons to drug use, so that I'd need the government to step in and make sure that little Johnny never takes a hit off a fucking bong?

Plus, you know that you can NOT have kids and not live at home, right? It's actually easier, because I'm not dropping a couple grand a month on feeding and clothing some mewling cabbage.

179 I've worked for myself for over 15 years so I'm not sure what the "go back to" is of you speak of.

I don't remember it either.  But it's the way it was done in the 20s and 30s when the rate was 1-2%.  You got a bill.

180 167
Obviously, it won't be there. And obviously, you are very young, and still have a socialist view of our economy that was plugged into your head by union teachers who will never have to worry about their retirement. 1.) I'm 27.
2.) I'm a way bigger capitalist than you are. I fucking love the free market, and I hate government. On my moderate days, I'm a libertarian. When I feel saucy, I'm a straight anarchist-capitalist. Bit the biggest part of my dick (whcih is still pretty small).

I don't know why you keep arguing with me when I've basically agreed with everything you've said. Taxes are too high, they should be lower, it's bullshit that private school parents have to pay property taxes for public school functioning, government is bad, Social Security is doomed to fail, etc..., and you keep talking shit. I agree with you on like 90% of shit, am more of an ardent supporter of economic and social freedom than you, and you're calling me a fucking socialist? What's next, you're gonna call Barry a Bircher? Am I in Bizzaro-land?

181 Why would having kids make me think that using the threat of force to prevent a titty from showing up on prime time TV is a good idea?

Please don't have kids.

182 Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at November 10, 2009 06:36 PM (lN56Y)

My point is I do pay quarterly. And I get the privilege of payingdirectly  for both halves of Medicare and Soc. Security.

It's not a bill but estimated taxes. Lots of fun.

183 Ahh, yes, the old "You'd understand if you had kids" argument. What would I understand, exactly?

You'd understand how fucking stupid a 75.00 car seat for a 9 year old is.  You'd understand how far the government crawls up your ass about vaccinations.  You'd realize just how bad the educational system is, and be forced to remove your kids and take on the expense of schooling at home, even though you're paying property taxes to the local teachers' union school.  In fact, douchebag, you're taxed twice. You pay property taxes, and then the schools fail, so yet get to pay again!!!  Is that what you want for us breeders, homo?  Fucking punishment??  Well, we've got it.

Now.  Go fuck yourself.

184 DMXRoid, no, the use of the word fucking, when done by someone with an actual point to make, is not offensive.

When someone with the IQ of a comatose bat thinks that he/she/it is being intellectual by using it the way you do, in the misguided assumption that it makes them a jet fuel powered genius on the level of Newton or Darwin enlightening the unwashed masses, well....it reminds me of the saying "obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." 

I don't assume to speak for others on this blog, but damn....I rarely come across anyone who resembles that remark like you do.  Even Palin Steele or Honest Cloud weren't that stubbornly stupid.  No wonder you have to pay to see hooters on the telly.  (Got banned from the local strip club, eh?)

I didn't ask if Social Security was going to be around when you need it.  It's not gonna be there for me, either, numbnutz.  If you had one, just one, functioning brain cell (helpful hint....spring for the better quality shit next time, or get a dealer with a better supply....you aren't doing your cranium any favors with whatever fifth-rate crap you smoke), you'd realize that the remark about Denny's was just to see how far you would take your principled stand against any kind of assistance to the elderly.  Any average moron on this site could have answered the question straight up.  Yes, no, or maybe. 

But nooooo.  All you could show is that you are approximately as familiar with the female reproductive system as Andrew Sullivan is, maybe less so.     

185 My point is I do pay quarterly. And I get the privilege of payingdirectly  for both halves of Medicare and Soc. Security.

It's not a bill but estimated taxes. Lots of fun.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 10, 2009 06:42 PM (FCWQb)

Imagine that the local Jiffy lube guy or the school teacher had to do that.  Well, at least the Jiffy Lube guy.

186 DMXRoid,

What I think got to people is the idea that you are subsidizing others (like the Church).

I get your point, X amount of revenue has to be collected and all these people are exempt then it's X-Y and Y has to be divided up amongst the rest of us.

I think other people are looking at the word 'subsidy' as something one is given, not what they keep.

The Catholic Church or any other non-profit isn't getting direct payments (like people who receive the EITC do) so calling it a subsidy isn't exactly correct. We should look at these things as spending issues, not tax/revenue issues.

Cut spending!

As for desocializing fire and roads, that's a pretty extreme libertarian position.

I'm fairly libertarian in my leanings but that's just crazy talk.

187 I don't know why you keep arguing with me when I've basically agreed with everything you've said.

LISTEN. TO. ME. YOU. DOUCHEBAG!

Your worldview is that about what you get to keep, not anger at what is taken.  You take your anger out on those you see as "takers from society", and consider yourself a "giver to society". 

THERE IS NO SOCIETY, YOU YOUNG, DUMB, FUCKING, SHITWEED.

You can not break out of the "from each, to each" mindset that has pissed you off so badly.  No.  You are not a socialist, or anything like it.  In, fact, that idea pisses you off.  But you are so fucking stupid that can't see that you think like one.

There's hope for you.  Don't blow that hope by being a douchebag.  Think!!

188 Now.  Go fuck yourself.

Herr, have pity on the poor mook.  He probably doesn't know how. 

189 Now.  Go fuck yourself.

Herr, have pity on the poor mook.  He probably doesn't know how. 

Posted by: bigpinkfluffybunny at November 10, 2009 06:50 PM (KWhJd)

I intentionally did not end my last post with that, as has become my wont with him.  He's not a bad egg, but he is confused.  I jsut want him to think.

190 DrewM:
When the government passes a special law making it so that you pay no taxes on a transaction or behavior that other people do pay taxes on, what is that other than the government giving you something? Without that law, you have less money. With the law, you have more money.

No, of course I'm not claiming that Churches or any other non-profits get straight cash payments from the government. What they get is a pass on their tax bill. The government declines to collect taxes on them, and chooses to collect them from me (dude, isn't self-employment tax a fucking bitch and a half?). That looks like a gift from my perspective. The FEC counts that sort of behavior as a gift, an in-kind donation. I dunno why similar logic wouldn't apply here.

Yes, privatizing fire departments and roads is fairly extreme libertarianism. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Why shouldn't property owners buy fire protection on their own dime? How wouldn't it make sense to charge people who actually USE fire department services as opposed to those that don't? If I have a fire-prone wife, and she lights the kitchen on fire three times a week, why should someone who has an electric range be forced to pay for my wife's inability to cook a roast without burning the house down?

191 DMXroid - Do you actually believe that if they start taxing churches, your taxes will go down?  Are you retarded?  Taxes do not go down you moron, they ratchet in one direction only.

192 When the government passes a special law making it so that you pay no taxes on a transaction or behavior that other people do pay taxes on, what is that other than the government giving you something?

That would be the government not taking from you.  Marx, much?

193 187 Your worldview is that about what you get to keep, not anger at what is taken. You take your anger out on those you see as "takers from society", and consider yourself a "giver to society". Actually, I consider myself a giver to myself. I mean, I probably contribute something to the greater good in that I operate a business that has customers, and presumably those customers find value in teh products and services I offer, but that's pretty much the extent of it.

I'm angry on both fronts. I'm angry that the government takes money away from me, and I'm angry that the government takes MORE money away from me than it would if it didn't treat some people and circumstances specially. Yes, it is about what I get to keep, because that's the way the fucking law is written. There's no limit on how much of my money the government could steal from me if it wanted to. Not so long ago, the top marginal rate in this country was like 90%. That's fucking insane. Straight up, batshit insane. To pretend as though I live in a world where the state respects my property rights would be delusional. The government will take as much as it can. I don't see why it's legit for it to take more from my organization than it does from a church.

THERE IS NO SOCIETY, YOU YOUNG, DUMB, FUCKING, SHITWEED.

Milton Friedman made that point quite eloquently in one of the episodes in the Free to Choose series, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I am an individualist, not a collectivist. That doesn't change the fact that our tax policy is built along collectivist grounds. Of course my ideal solution is no-tax, but in the meantime, I don't see why I should get more fucked than anyone else.

You can not break out of the "from each, to each" mindset that has pissed you off so badly. No. You are not a socialist, or anything like it. In, fact, that idea pisses you off. But you are so fucking stupid that can't see that you think like one. What from each to each mindset? That doesn't even make sense. I'm simply saying that it's wrong for the government to punish me via the tax code for engaging in behavior that doesn't fall into their Gallant column.

194

How much more revenue would be collected if you didn't get like an extra 5 grand per cunt maggot?

Charming.

Is all this about gay marriage or something?

195 UpthedownSteroid - Of course my ideal solution is no-tax...

There's the problem, you guys have been arguing with an utopian idiot.  For an individualist he sure worry's a lot about fairness and what the other guy is getting.

196 191 DMXroid - Do you actually believe that if they start taxing churches, your taxes will go down? Are you retarded? Taxes do not go down you moron, they ratchet in one direction only. Well, it's two parts. First, I think that if there weren't all sorts of exemptions and allowances and credits and shit built into the tax code in the first place, our tax burden would be lower, because it would be more obvious, and would dickfuck more people come April 15th, and then they'd get pissed and set the Capitol on fire or something. Second, I think that if you removed the exemption today, at the very least the increased collections would offset the amount we have to borrow, which results in increased taxes and inflation in the future. So, no, I don't think that it'd make rates go down, but I do think that the impact would be net beneficial anyway.

197 You can not break out of the "from each, to each" mindset that has pissed you off so badly. No. You are not a socialist, or anything like it. In, fact, that idea pisses you off. But you are so fucking stupid that can't see that you think like one. What from each to each mindset?

Well, you've gotten angry at breeders, called me a thief, and otherwise made an ass of yourself be cause you believe that your money belongs to the government, and whatever you are allowed to keep is yours.  You have made a point of attacking those that don't get fucked as badly as you do, and made only waving motions at the government that is fucking all of us.  And if you want churches taxed less than you are, the process is to overturn the first amendment.  Good luck with that.  But the fact is that churches are all non-profits, and don't pay taxes under any laws.  In most places, non-profits are even exempt from property taxes.  This attack on churches is a red herring.

My point is this:  You attack your fellow citizens because you believe you are "subsidizing" behavior you don't approve of, like, you know, reproducing.  Well, we don't all suck cock, OK?  But we are not being subsidized, we are merely not getting dicked quite as hard, except that we are, if you noted my comments about property taxes.

Quit taking your frustrations on the rest of us when we didn't do a fucking thing to you.

198

I'm angry on both fronts. I'm angry that the government takes money away from me, and I'm angry that the government takes MORE money away from me than it would if it didn't treat some people and circumstances specially.

Why are "gay" people always so unhappy?

199 @40 I agree. Tax the churches, and tax the indian casinos while you are at it.

200 For an individualist he sure worry's a lot about fairness and what the other guy is getting.

Posted by: fozzy at November 10, 2009 07:12 PM (ccEuN)

And then this dickhead comes along and boils down my 3000 words on this thread into pure, gooey awesome.  Not my night.

201

Congresswoman Woolsey: "When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status."

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Everytime I see a Democrat visit a church during an election season he's making a campaign speech, the only words he leaves out are "vote for me on Nov 4th !"

202 It is about gay marriage, isn't it?

203

"Wonder what lunch is like for her and maxine and wasserman"

Red snapper?

204
It would be my extreme pleasure to perform a dilation and curettage on Congresswoman Woolseys oral cavity to excise the dead tissue created by her ridiculous statement. 

D & C's are normally performed on pussy's, but Woolsey would come the exception.  A medical breakthrough for foot-in-mouth disease.

Dr Fish & Nurse Ratched

205 We gave up donating $$/time to the church years ago. Priest molestations, overt support for the DNC(well at our church anyway), immigration stance, etc...

They keep sending us a package of donation envelopes every month. The Catholic church needs to wake up.

206 D & C's are normally performed on pussy's, but Woolsey would come the exception.  A medical breakthrough for foot-in-mouth disease.

Talk to CoolCzech.  He had a his foot stuck in a vulva the other night.

207 DMXRoid,

The bottom line is government should be taking less from everyone (a proposition I believe you agree with). It seems you are angry at the people who receive certain tax exemptions. I think that anger is better directed at the government, not the person not paying (again, I believe you agree with that).

I think you  unintentionally sound like a hard lefty who views someone who takes advantage of a tax break (loophole some might say) as a tax cheat.

The government shouldn't be taking as much from anyone or using the tax code to favor certain behaviors. But just because it does, doesn't mean you are subsiding others.

As for desocializing fire services, everyone benefits from an on-call and fully staffed fire department. Paying for that on the backs of only those who use it would lead to dangerously low service and equipment levels. It's like insurance, you have to pay for it before you use it. The cost per user would be prohibitively high and that would impact quality for when you actually need it.

The same goes for roads. Even if you could argue that you personally don't use them or only use them so much, you still recieve value because they exist (either in your property value, the goods and services you need travel along them, etc).

208

"A medical breakthrough for foot-in-mouth disease."

I suggest you perform the D&C on her frontals (lobotomy).  What?  Liberals have already received them to attain their current elevated state of wisdom?

Never mind.

209
Talk to CoolCzech.  He had a his foot stuck in a vulva the other night.

Not familiar with that malady, but will look under toe-cooter for a diagnosis.

210 Well, you've gotten angry at breeders

When did Marxists get a monopoly on hating breeders?

called me a thief

No, I said that taking government largess is thievery, even when it's in the form of subsidies.

and otherwise made an ass of yourself be cause you believe that your money belongs to the government, and whatever you are allowed to keep is yours.

No, I think that my money belongs to me, but that the government will take as much of it as it wants to without taking my opinion into consideration. I've said this five or six times now, are you just skipping over those parts? Would it help if I made it huge and bold and shit?

You have made a point of attacking those that don't get fucked as badly as you do,

No, I attack people who use the government to advantage themselves over everyone else.

and made only waving motions at the government that is fucking all of us.

So the problem is that I haven't proven my anti-government bonaifides? Do I need to be more specific than "I'm an anarchist on even days, and a libertarian on odd days"? I fucking defended private roads and fire departments. How much more anti-government do you want me to be?

And if you want churches taxed less than you are, the process is to overturn the first amendment.

Not really. Taxing churches is consistent with the first amendment, as long as they're taxed along the same lines as any other corporate body. The First Amendment prohibits discrimination for or against any given church, not treating churches like everyone else.

But the fact is that churches are all non-profits, and don't pay taxes under any laws. In most places, non-profits are even exempt from property taxes. This attack on churches is a red herring.

Yes, all of my arguments apply to all non-profits. I'm fine with that. I went after churches because that was the relevant topic. I can give plenty of reasons why I think that MoveOn or Rand or Heritage or Code Pink or whatever shouldn't be tax-exempt too. I'm entirely consistent here.

My point is this: You attack your fellow citizens because you believe you are "subsidizing" behavior you don't approve of, like, you know, reproducing.

My approval of the behavior is irrelevant. The problem for me hinges on the use of force. Forcing me to support a cause or behavior I approve of is just as bad as forcing me to support one that I don't. Force is bad.

Well, we don't all suck cock, OK?

Nor should you be forced to subsidize the sucking of cock. If the First Church of Blowjobs opens up tomorrow, they should have to pay their taxes like anyone else.

But we are not being subsidized, we are merely not getting dicked quite as hard, except that we are, if you noted my comments about property taxes.

You can't use public schools as an argument for how people who send their kid to private schools get double dicked compared to people who have no kids. We are both forced to pay for public schools, while neither of us consume their services. That you choose to homeschool or send your kid to private school is a choice, not a coerced action. Yes, it sucks that you have to pay for two things when you only use one, but I'm paying for one thing and use zero, so we're both pretty dicked.

211 BTW- I get that DMXRoid was being a douche with the 'breeder' shit but I thought conservatives were generally opposed to targeted tax cuts.

I don't think that because I don't have kids, I'm subsidizing those with them but shouldn't our goal be to reduce the tax burden on everyone, not just certain favored people?

212 No, I said that taking government largess is thievery, even when it's in the form of subsidies.
DMXRoid

Dude, you are being idiotic. Keeping more of your own money is not 'taking government largess'.

The only time it would be is if a person's tax obligation nets out to zero and then when you add in credits they are getting money back. EITC is the biggest and worst example of this.

But if you have a tax obligation of $5,000 and because you have to two kids you only pay $4,000, that's not 'largess', that's money of your own the government isn't confiscating.

There is a difference.

213

shouldn't our goal be to reduce the tax burden on everyone, not just certain favored people?

No. Certain people should be favored in the tax code, and certain people disfavored. Parasites like dee em ex fall into the latter category.

214

We are both forced to pay for public schools, while neither of us consume their services.

You do "consume their services", you fucking retard. Unless you followed my advice and moved to that desert island.

215 Drew, Flenser, and Morgenholz - The guy already described himself as an anarchist.  There's no point in trying to argue with him.

216

I'm pretty much down with DMXRoid here. But hating tykes is pretty much lefty territory (the ghey thing) and one day he'll be absolutely astonished he ever felt that way.

If people had to pay for fire service they'd think twice about frying turkeys and smoking in bed.

We need our utopian libertarians.

217 DrewM:

The bottom line is government should be taking less from everyone (a proposition I believe you agree with). It seems you are angry at the people who receive certain tax exemptions. I think that anger is better directed at the government, not the person not paying (again, I believe you agree with that).

Correct on both counts.

I think you unintentionally sound like a hard lefty who views someone who takes advantage of a tax break (loophole some might say) as a tax cheat.

It's not that they're tax cheats, it's that the state unfairly advantages them over others. Government intervention is what's bad. Government intervention via the tax code is doubly bad. Plus, how many times do I have to say "I hate the government and I love capitalism" for people to believe that I hate the government and love capitalism?

The government shouldn't be taking as much from anyone or using the tax code to favor certain behaviors. But just because it does, doesn't mean you are subsiding others.

I think it does, if there's no argument to my earlier assertion that revenue shortages lead to deficit spending, higher tax rates, and inflation (which there isn't, as far as I know). If I pay more as a result of someone else paying less, and they're given the opportunity to pay less by the only institution that has the power to collect revenue, how aren't I subsidizing them? Again, it's obviously not a cash payout, but since the exemption is something granted by the state (the money isn't a gift from the state, not having to pay the tax is), that's still a state-enforced subsidy.

As for desocializing fire services, everyone benefits from an on-call and fully staffed fire department.

Do they? I think there's a good argument for the collective benefit of fire departments, but I'm not sure it holds up under scrutiny. For starters, nobody benefits from a fire department until there's actually a fire. It's not like cops, where their mere existence serves some deterrent force (we can leave the discussion of private security for later). Fire departments don't prevent fires from happening, they're a completely reactive agency. I'm lucky enough to not have needed to call the fire department, ever. What benefit have I derived from them?

Paying for that on the backs of only those who use it would lead to dangerously low service and equipment levels. I don't know that that's necessarily the case. Even if you wanted to treat it like insurance, I can see a scenario where homeowners insurance issuers refuse to give you coverage unless you've purchased fire-fighter insurance, or bundling them together. In fact, it'd probably result in a more sensible distribution of fire-department resources if you did it that way. Property at higher risk for fire would be charged a higher rate, and high-risk areas would be appropriately staffed. There's also a long history both in America and Europe of volunteer fire departments. My point is mostly that this isn't an insurmountable problem, not that any specific solution I have is necessarily the correctone.

It's like insurance, you have to pay for it before you use it. The cost per user would be prohibitively high and that would impact quality for when you actually need it.

Is that the case with all forms of insurance now? I think it's fairly obvious that the failings of the various insurance systems as they exist now is because the government intervenes, not because the market works shit out for itself. Car insurance rates are high because mandatory coverage laws force insurers to take on high risk drivers. Health insurance costs increase because the government inhibits competition, and the tax code promotes an abstraction away from the costs of health care or insurance. Etc...

The same goes for roads. Even if you could argue that you personally don't use them or only use them so much, you still recieve value because they exist (either in your property value, the goods and services you need travel along them, etc).

While I admit that the problem of roads is more technically difficult to solve, the principle is still the same. Not everyone benefits equally from the existence of all roads. It _is_ possible to have a functioning system of private roads (both historically and in theory), so I don't see why we should have the government doing it.

218 Ashamed? Neither I nor my colleague have ever heard of it. We thought it was the Muslim name, As Hamed.

219 regarding tax exempt as a subsidy... that's one of the biggest things I hate about democrats specifically and politicians in general. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY! Only democrats can define tax cuts on the budget as an expenditure. How much did the Bush Tax cuts cost the government? A democrat would say it cost the government trillions in "lost" revenue. How can you lose something that was never your's to begin with?

220 There's also a long history both in America and Europe of volunteer fire departments.

Yes and they organized as tax districts to finance them.

For starters, nobody benefits from a fire department until there's actually a fire.

And then it has to exist. Fully equipped and manned. In order to maintain a set level of protection, they have to have a pre-existing budget, not one which depends upon the level of need that gets billed post-facto to fund them.

What if there were few calls in one year, would prices rise the next? Would there be a sliding scale based on complexity and volume of calls? Again, it's not a workable plan.

The benefit you derive, even if you don't use the service, is that if you do need it, it will be available and at a certain level.

There's a similar argument against charging for roads in that way. It's simply to inefficient and uncertain of a way to finance a service that needs to be maintained a basic level regardless of use.

221 DrewM:

Dude, you are being idiotic........

There is a difference.

It's mostly a semantic difference. The government makes thieves of us all. I'm not even saying that I'm not guilty of it. I deduct every goddamn business expense I possibly can. And by doing so, I'm contributing to the problem. We see the problem in different ways, I think. The way I look at it, the government is going to straight jackfuck us no matter what happens. It's going to piss away a lot of money no matter what. We're going to pay for it one way or the other, either through increased taxation, or increased inflation. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop that. Government has always grown. Government will always grow. Taxation is visible, inflation is not, and I'd rather have people take the visible hit and get pissed off by it than take the invisible hit and just sit around wondering how come a dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

222 219 regarding tax exempt as a subsidy... that's one of the biggest things I hate about democrats specifically and politicians in general. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY! Only democrats can define tax cuts on the budget as an expenditure. How much did the Bush Tax cuts cost the government? A democrat would say it cost the government trillions in "lost" revenue. How can you lose something that was never your's to begin with?

You know it's not their money. I know it's not their money. Pretty much everyone knows it's not their money. That doesn't mean that they're going to stop acting like it's their money even for a minute. They're going to continue to treat it as their property, because they have all the guns, they have the monopoly on force, they have the power to change the tax law, and they are going to get theirs, because they can just take it. They've shown time and time again that their spending habits have nothing to do with revenues. When they spend it like its theirs, and can take our money and make it theirs, what property rights do you really think you have?

223 Um, you know, this sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory.

224 BTW- Fire protection is built into homeowners policy (at least in NY State).

One of the reasons volunteer fire depts always get new equipment is they have to. There are rating agencies which rate each community and basically tell the local FD what kind of equipment they need to have based on the number and types of house (among other factors).

If the fire departments don't comply with those levels of coverage, insurance companies won't write policies for homeowners.

225 Why shouldn't property owners buy fire protection on their own dime? How wouldn't it make sense to charge people who actually USE fire department services as opposed to those that don't? If I have a fire-prone wife, and she lights the kitchen on fire three times a week, why should someone who has an electric range be forced to pay for my wife's inability to cook a roast without burning the house down?

This is exactly whats wrong with your thinking on most of your responses.  What happens when your fire-prone wife burns down your house along with a couple of others?  I am sure you would say you were responsible for it, or an insurance company was, but under your thinking what if the fire prone don't get insurance or otherwise can't pay for that house.  Those owners are just fucked I suppose.  No thanks, I'll pay for essential services like fire and roads so your stupid wife doesn't burn down my house too.

And no, no matter who pays what taxes the govt will spend it and more unless they are legally prevented from doing so.  Its not the deductions, its the spending.

226 DrewM:

Yes and they organized as tax districts to finance them.

There have been privately supported VFD's.

And then it has to exist. Fully equipped and manned. In order to maintain a set level of protection, they have to have a pre-existing budget, not one which depends upon the level of need that gets billed post-facto to fund them. The same is true of emergency rooms, isn't it? Why wouldn't the same logic apply there then? Are you for publicly funded and monopolized emergency rooms all of the sudden? Seems unlikely, so explain the difference.

What if there were few calls in one year, would prices rise the next? Would there be a sliding scale based on complexity and volume of calls? Again, it's not a workable plan.

You're telling me that it's not workable because there's too many ways to charge for it? Come on, that's where competition comes in. Someone will build a better widget because it'll make them money to do so. The same competitive forces that operate in other markets would operate in a private fire department insurance market. Insurance isn't a game that nobody's figured out.

The benefit you derive, even if you don't use the service, is that if you do need it, it will be available and at a certain level.

Emergency rooms. Or, even better, private paramedic services.

There's a similar argument against charging for roads in that way. It's simply to inefficient and uncertain of a way to finance a service that needs to be maintained a basic level regardless of use. There are all sorts of private contracts that could provide for that. For example, a private road builder could choose only to build a road in front of someone's property if they agree to pay X for the upkeep of that road. Once that agreement's entered into, the road owner has a breach of contract claim against a property owner who doesn't pay.

227 Make way for the Catholic Czar! All hail Lord Obama!

228 No "V" thread?

229 I would like to honor Woolsey.

230

We need our utopian libertarians.

 

Libertarianism is the perfect political philosophy for sociopathic adolescents of all ages. It is parasitic on the broader society, which must be healthy and wealthy to be able to afford it. It itself is always a dead end, because it pretends, as our friend here says, that "there is no society".

It only works as long as it is believed by just a handful of cranks. If everybody believed it then everybody would take MeBoys advice and not have children, and none of us would be here to argue over taxes.

231 There have been privately supported VFD's.

100 years ago.  I'm a conservative but that doesn't mean the past was always better.

The same is true of emergency rooms, isn't it?

There are public funded hospitals. And even with private ones, they all take pubic money in some way or another.

You're telling me that it's not workable because there's too many ways to charge for it?

No, what I'm telling you is there are many ways to fund it, none of them make much sense.

For example, a private road builder could choose only to build a road in front of someone's property if they agree to pay X for the upkeep of that road.

What if I live at the end of the road and everyone on the road except the guy in the middle is willing to pay for it? And even if he refuses to pay for it or use it, he still reaps benefits from the roads existence.

Look, just because there are idiots who think government should do everything doesn't mean that there aren't things government should do.

232 Ashamed of her ignorance?  Did you miss the name of the organization she belongs to (US House of Ignoramuses Representatives)?  That pack of a$$holes doesn't have the intelligence to feel shame.

233 DrewM:

100 years ago. I'm a conservative but that doesn't mean the past was always better.

I'm not arguing that the past is better. I'm arguing that there are empirical examples of services being provided without government intervention. In the case of VFD's and private FD's, they stopped being privately funded because the government filled pretty much 100% of demand for FD services. It's like with social programs spending and charitable giving, the state crowds out the private.

There are public funded hospitals. And even with private ones, they all take pubic money in some way or another.

Yes, there are. Do there need to be? Do private hospitals need public money to survive? I think that if you removed the regulatory burden and the subsidization at the same time, there'd be plenty of people who figured out how to run a profitable private hospital. Also, there's still private paramedic services hanging out there.

No, what I'm telling you is there are many ways to fund it, none of them make much sense.

Neither of us has a profit motive to make it work. It's amazing how many things don't make sense to someone with no real reason to try end up making tons of money. Plus, I can think of more than a couple ways to make the private funding of fire department insurance viable. Like I said, home insurance companies could package it, or make it a requirement of coverage.

What if I live at the end of the road and everyone on the road except the guy in the middle is willing to pay for it? And even if he refuses to pay for it or use it, he still reaps benefits from the roads existence. Then the road doesn't get built while that property owner has the property. The rest of the neighborhood has an incentive to buy him out, or sell their own properties and go somewhere else. That seems a better solution that simply declaring that you and I have to pay for a poorly paved road in some piece of shit East Texas town that four people live in because it's a "public good". It might be less convenient, but it's more less unjustified state intervention.

Look, just because there are idiots who think government should do everything doesn't mean that there aren't things government should do.

The problem is, when you make that statement, you open up the floodgates to all sorts of things that people want considered a public good. Free health insurance is a "public good" because we all benefit if we're all healthy. Free education is a "public good" because we all benefit if people are smarter. Social spending is a "public good" because we're all better off if people aren't eating shit out of garbage cans and robbing us. You end up relying on the subjective determination of whoever is in power to guarantee that it doesn't go too far. As we've seen, that's a failed strategy.

234 Umm... tax-exempt status, just like any other form of relief from what John Q Public would be expected to pay in a similar circumstance, is absolutely a subsidy.

Failure to tax isn't a subsidy.  A subsidy is where the US.gov GIVES you money, not where it fails to take money from you.

Example: Farm subsidies, where farmers get a check not to plant crops = subsidy.  Tax exempt status, where the government does not take taxes out of your money = not a subsidy.  In one case the .gov gave you money, in the other case the .gov just didn't take money away from you.

The same is true where a state gives a corporation a tax break to relocate there.  It's not a subsidy if they simply "choose" not to take money from you.  However, if they agree to build a stadium so a sports team will relocate there, then it is a subsidy since the team got some tangible asset.  (BTW, all of you morons are aware that corporations don't pay taxes anyway, right?)

Otherwise, I agree with you about taxes.  I'm a supporter of the FairTax, but I could support a flat tax as long as there were no exemptions - none whatsoever - and the rate was set in the Constitutional amendment that enacted it so that in order to raise said rate another amendment had to be added to modify the first one.  That way the Congress couldn't just raise rates at will, nor could they favor one group over another through the tax codes.

235 If I take 10% of everyone's income EXCEPT for someone who's wearing a priest's collar

Ummm, the Catholic church is doing YOU a BIG favor by offloading a HUGE burden that would otherwise be placed on the public school system resulting in massive tax increases to ALL taxpayers.

See, it works like this - people who send their kids to catholic schools, pay twice.  They pay their ordinary pubic school taxes, which they get absolutely no value for, then they pay again to send the kids to the catholic school.

Go ahead.  Shutdown the church exemptions and see how much you "new tax" you collect.  The churches will say fuck you and blow your school taxes through the roof and shut their schools down.

All you have is idle bullshit threats, the church has millions of warm student bodies they can overwhelm your sorry ass with in a heart beat should you piss them off bad enough.

Think very carefully about this.  You're upping the ante a lot holding a ten high pair of duces.

236 #235

Technically it may not meet the definition of subsidy, but I would say there's no difference in the affect of tax-exempt status: like a subsidy, it encourages the activity which is being tax-favored.

237 230

Libertarianism is the perfect political philosophy for sociopathic adolescents of all ages. It is parasitic on the broader society, which must be healthy and wealthy to be able to afford it. It itself is always a dead end, because it pretends, as our friend here says, that "there is no society".

You've got cause and effect backwards. A civilization is healthy and wealthy in direct proportion to the level of freedom it provides (how libertarian it is). To the extent that a modern, first world nation drifts from libertarian economic behavior, its health and wealth decline.

There is no society in the sense of a monolithic block that can be described to have motives or goals or capable of taking action. "Society" is merely a collection of individuals, all with their own interests and preferences, interacting voluntarily.

If everybody believed it then everybody would take MeBoys advice and not have children, and none of us would be here to argue over taxes.

First off, I'm pretty sure that the anti-children position isn't exactly part of the libertarian core value system. I'm personally anti-child because I just don't like them, wouldn't have any of my own because they're fucking expensive and time consuming, and think that people use them as an excuse to behave the way they've decided is best (titties, drugs, huge swaths of consumer regulation). That's a personal evaluation on my part. If other people want to breed, wtf do I care, as long as them having children doesn't interfere with my life in any way.

238 You late to the party, flenser.  I called him a commie a while back... And his underlying philosophy is. 

No, his underlying philosophy is not communist, he's actually stating a very libertarian ideal.  He just didn't start out stating it very well, so now he's being called a commie, a douchebag, and a lot of other unflattering names.  Like it or not, he's right about what he's saying, he just didn't start out saying it very well.

Technically it may not meet the definition of subsidy, but I would say there's no difference in the affect of tax-exempt status: like a subsidy, it encourages the activity which is being tax-favored.

True enough, but it's still not a subsidy.  That's where DMXRoid went wrong, and why he's been labeled a troll and is being treated like one now.

A flat tax as I described, or the FairTax, would fix it all.

239 PurpleAvenger:

That's a silly argument. Taken to its logical extension, any organization that provided a service that competes with an existing government service would deserve massive tax subsidies. That means you'd be forced to subsidize both the government program AND the competition to the government program, both without any say in the matter.

Further, I don't think that you just get to assert that Catholic schools would dry up if you removed the tax-exempt status. You really think churches would leave? No, instead, you'd see what you see today in a lot of northern industrial cities: churches within a diocese would start to consolidate because they weren't able to make enough money to stay open. There'd still be a demand for both private schools and the Mass, they'd just be fulfilled differently.

Also, for-profit schools.

Plus, I don't see why the only change to the status quo I'm allowed to make, in my hypothetical "get rid of exempt status" world, is to get rid of the exemptions. If I get to dick around with the tax code, I'm not going to stop there. Nothing forces me to defend my opposition to exemptions in a vacuum.

240 There  are many volunteer fire departments and EMT services in the US.  (Why the government can spend millions on crap like "Piss Christ" and can't provide rural areas with emergency services instead is another question entirely).  And there are plenty of privately owned roads.  A friend of mine lives on one, and if someone fails to pay up their share of the maintenance, they can have a lien put on their property.
I'm not a wacky libertarian who believes the interstates could be funded this way, I'm just pointing out you can't dismiss these things are being Utopian and unworkable.

And getting back to the actual point made in the post, I've recently come to the conclusion that all politics in America revolves around abortion.  Everything else is minor.  Helluva situation.

241 it encourages the activity which is being tax-favored.

That "activity" being provision of schools and hospitals, which of course are detrimental to the well being of the public, right?

Q: Are YOU prepared to shoulder a crushing new tax burden to take over the services provided by the schools and hospitals run by the church if they call your bluff and shutdown?

242 Libertarianism is the perfect political philosophy for sociopathic adolescents of all ages. It is parasitic on the broader society, which must be healthy and wealthy to be able to afford it. It itself is always a dead end, because it pretends, as our friend here says, that "there is no society".

Oh yeah, I like that.

Libertarianism can be summed up in a single phrase: as ye do no harm, do as ye will.

The problem with libertarianism in the leftist view is that they don't support the idea that the individual belongs to the State where their monetary behavior is concerned.

The problem with libertarianism in the rightist view is that they don't support the idea that the individual belongs to the State where their personal behavior is concerned.

An individual belongs to themselves, where any behavior is concerned.  The limit is when physical or financial harm is caused through force or fraud.  This is the proper place of government, to protect the individual's right not to suffer physical or financial harm through force or fraud.

All other functions are spurious.

243 PA: What bluff? We're arguing on the internet, not standing outside the fucking rectory with a truckload of IRS agents. Benny 16 isn't sitting in the Vatican with his finger on the button, just waiting for DMXRoid to make one more anti-exemption post.

And the question isn't whether or not the service being tax-favored is good or bad for the "public well being". Hospitals and schools are both good things. That doesn't mean that everyone should pay for them. Weed and hookers are fucking awesome. I think that if everyone had a joint and a blow job, it'd be a huge step forward for the public good. That doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to buy me an ounce and a Taiwanese boy.

244

You've got cause and effect backwards

Nope, I do not. Libertarianism is a very recent development, something you only see in very wealthy societies. In fact you mostly see it in the wealthiest parts of those wealthy societies. I'm willing to bet you live in a place more like NYC than a place like North Dakota, in spite of the fact that you'd be a lot "freer" in North Dakota.

 

A civilization is healthy and wealthy in direct proportion to the level of freedom it provides (how libertarian it is).

Then there has never been a "healthy and wealthy" civilization in history. America was never libertarian, nor was the British Empire, Rome, Athens, or anyplace else.

 

Society" is merely a collection of individuals, all with their own interests and preferences, interacting voluntarily.

Society is a collection of people who come together for the common good, and who give up some of their freedom in the process. Read your Locke.

 

First off, I'm pretty sure that the anti-children position isn't exactly part of the libertarian core value system.

 

Selfishness is. And selfish people tend not to have kids. Ask Ayn Rand.

 

If other people want to breed, wtf do I care, as long as them having children doesn't interfere with my life in any way.

 

I don't know why you think anyone gives a rats ass about you or your life, or any "interference" you may suffer.

How do you like that "wtf" attitude?

The presumption of libertarianism is that I should care, of course, that I should want you to live as you wish. But libertarianism  provides no incentive for me to want that.

245 Further, I don't think that you just get to assert that Catholic schools would dry up if you removed the tax-exempt status.

That's a pretty big gamble you're making with the taxpayers money assuming the parishioners will continue to be suckers and willingly pay even more than double now that you want to tax them too isn't it? 

And if they DO call your bluff?  Then what?  Here's what: YOU ARE FUCKED.  END OF STORY.  There's very few school districts in the nation that could handle an instant 10% increase in student body from one year to the next without absolute panic ensuing.  Where you gonna get the teachers if the nuns say screw you, we're going back to the convent?

Betting the church won't call your bluff is an amateur play.  If I were running the church, I'd pull the trigger on your ignorant ass in a NY minute and make you face some really hard reality.

246 PA: What bluff?

Oh, pardon me.  I was talking the hard economic reality of playing hardball, and you were apparently talking out your ass with internet bullshit.  My bad.

247

Libertarianism can be summed up in a single phrase: as ye do no harm, do as ye will.

Sounds as simple and as trite as communism, doesn't it? Grownups can handle slightly more complicated ideas.

248 A descendent of Cardinal Woolsey, maybe??? Thomas Wolsey (c.1471 – 29 November 1530; sometimes spelled Woolsey) was an English statesman and a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. When Henry VIII became king of England in 1509, Wolsey became the King's almoner.[1] Wolsey's affairs prospered and by 1514 he had become the controlling figure in all matters of state and extremely powerful within the Church. The highest political position he attained was Lord Chancellor, the King's chief adviser, enjoying great freedom and often depicted as an alter rex (other king). Within the Church he became Archbishop of York, the second most important seat in England, and then was made a cardinal in 1515, giving him precedence over even the Archbishop of Canterbury. His main legacy is from his interest in architecture, in particular his old home of Hampton Court Palace, which stands today. Few men born without noble blood had as much power as Wolsey during Europe's Early Modern period.[citation needed]

249 Go ahead, pull THAT trigger.

250 245

e, I do not. Libertarianism is a very recent development, something you only see in very wealthy societies. In fact you mostly see it in the wealthiest parts of those wealthy societies. I'm willing to bet you live in a place more like NYC than a place like North Dakota, in spite of the fact that you'd be a lot "freer" in North Dakota.

Bitch, I live in Austin. You think I'd live in some high tax shithole like New York? You couldn't pay me enough money. And while Libertarians as a party might be a recent development, libertarian philosophy is not. It was birthed from the works of Locke, Smith, Mill, etc... I mean, it might be a historically recent concept, but it's not that much younger than modern democracy. I think this is just a case of you not being familiar with the history of libertarianism.

Then there has never been a "healthy and wealthy" civilization in history. America was never libertarian, nor was the British Empire, Rome, Athens, or anyplace else.

Is that a controversial proposition? I can think of lots of problems with any "great" nation you might want to list. I mean, it's a sliding scale, it's not binary. The more libertarian you are, the more prosperous you'll be (as a nation, I mean). Furthermore, is it controversial to state that there isn't a single example in the history of mankind where greater actual freedom didn't lead to greater prosperity?

Society is a collection of people who come together for the common good, and who give up some of their freedom in the process. Read your Locke.

That's a moronic definition, and it's hardly supported by anything Locke wrote. What's "the common good"? Do people all have the same concept of it when they come together? No, of course not, these are all amorphous concepts that are evaluated differently by different people. They come together because it's in their own interest to do so. You can't buy and sell shit from yourself.

Selfishness is. And selfish people tend not to have kids. Ask Ayn Rand.

Objectivism != libertarianism. Libertarianism is, for the most part, an entirely political philosophy. Objectivism has an ethics and an aesthetics associated with it. I am not an objectivist, although I agree with them on politics.

I don't know why you think anyone gives a rats ass about you or your life, or any "interference" you may suffer.

I don't think that anyone does give a shit about my life. Nor should they. My life is mine to be concerned about. What I would hope is that people wouldn't use the fact that they've reproduced as a basis to go and change society to protect their little bastards from what they think is the big bad world. Why should the fact that someone has a kid stop me from smoking pot, or having cap guns that fire off loudly (there's an actual regulation for that, btw), or being able to light my cigarette when I'm drunk? It shouldn't, and yet "the children" are used as the basis for many many laws in our society that infringe upon my freedom.

The presumption of libertarianism is that I should care, of course, that I should want you to live as you wish. But libertarianism provides no incentive for me to want that.

No, the presumption of libertarianism is that you have no right to tell me how to live my life. Whether you want me to or not is irrelevant, you simply don't have the authority to tell someone else how to roll. You can be a meddling little piece of shit, showing up and protesting at every Friday Night Death Match, or throwing fetus parts on abortionists or whatever, but you're not allowed to use the threat of force, or force itself, to make me behave how you want me to.

251 Oops, sorry, you are most of which a bunch of suckers of cock.

252 Anyone note that her district is one of the most affluent in the country.  I note her concern for the poor women in other districts, sounds like the same concerns Sanger had.

253 Flenser, schools - hell - the hospitals.  They could just lock the doors on Friday, what would the public health system do with the drop in capacity.

254 I am really sick and tired of trying to make a comment on the article in question and finding that I am in the middle of some kind of fucking shoot out between dip shit right and dip shit rightest.

Fuck, I'm better off at a survivalist website where at least people know what the hell is going on.

255 For those who don't like other people having kids and think that kids "decrease" your standard of living; please thank my family for being well above the replacement ratio when those kids of mine are writing your retirement and paying medical bills.  And since they go to Catholic schools, I would also like a nice thank you for paying for both my own kids, and the rest being taught by the NEA slugs. 

256

 libertarian philosophy ... was birthed from the works of Locke, Smith, Mill, etc

 

Birthed? I thought you hated breeders? In any case Locke, Smith and Mill were not libertarians. It's a new thing, newer even than fascism.

 

 I mean, it's a sliding scale, it's not binary. The more libertarian you are, the more prosperous you'll be (as a nation, I mean)

Easily shown to be false. Rome was a hell of lot less libertarian (in the free sense) than the barbarian tribes it fought, though it was a lot wealthier.

 

That's a moronic definition, and it's hardly supported by anything Locke wrote.

 

It's Locke's blasted definition!

"Wherever, therefore, any number of men so unite into one society as to quit every one his executive power of the law of Nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society. And this is done wherever any number of men, in the state of Nature, enter into society to make one people one body politic under one supreme government: or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made. For hereby he authorises the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him as the public good of the society shall require, to the execution whereof his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due."

 

I don't think that anyone does give a shit about my life. Nor should they.

In that case, why should I object if the state taxes you at 99%?

 

No, the presumption of libertarianism is that you have no right to tell me how to live my life.

No, that's not the case. I'm not telling you how to live your life now, and you're here demanding that I, and all of us, tell the government to change its policy to suit you. You're not asking me to leave you alone, you're asking me for help. That fact is disguised somewhat by your rudeness, but that is what you are doing. So tell me why I should help you.

257 DMXDroid - quit bitching about kids.  My kids will be paying for your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid when you can't work anymore (if you actually ever did).

Instead of blasting kids, maybe you should thank them ahead of time for paying taxes towards your socialist retirement.

Dick.

258 World Time Timezone Converter Unit Converter Currency Exchange Rate Countdown Counter Timer 14

259 Like it or not, he's right about what he's saying, he just didn't start out saying it very well.

I remain unconvinced.  He thinks he is being Randian or Liberaterian or some other BS, but doesn't understand he is in the fast lane of anarchy road.  I wish him well when he reaches that mythical land.

Not the first understanding of common or public good vs. private property and their many times symbiotic relationships, not mention econ 101, free rider problem, etc.

260 another misconception on this thread is that kids are only an element of the government sector of the economy (taxes, schools, etc.) -- the "replacement ratio" effects everything.  The amount of economic activity drives investment, stock prices, charity, etc.  -- so saying your going to live off of your own wealth is impractical as any investment (even buried Krugerrands) is driven by the economic activity of the population behind you. 

Now if you intend to invest your retirement in spelt grains, flour mills, and ammunition; then by all means head off to the survivalist forums.

261 ...and yet, so many Catholics support democrat politicians...

262 A libertarian is an anarchist who finished college -- without learning anything.  It is a meaningless political movement, in that it can't organize itself to be an organization committed to no action.  It is like a political law of thermodynamics - in the end there will be only chaos (to steal another morons thunder).

263

So Queen Dimbulb and her Obama keep everything "non-political".

Bull. Shit.

http://tinyurl.com/6r276o

Now, when she stops stimulating herself with a HoHo and a picture of the Black Messiah long enough to go after the churches that host her and her dream-boy's overtly-political rallies, then we might care.

But for now, the only thing she's demonstrated is that she was on welfare for a reason.

264 262, that is the real hammer, not closing schools or hospitals, it is an active effort by the Church to discourage voting or contributing to Democratic politicians -- about 35 House members who could not be re-elected if the Irish Catholic vote wasn't reliable.

265 265- I just proves to me that there are too many Catholics that don't have the damndest clue what it means to be a Catholic.

And some of them are clergy.  I know.  The Archbishop in my city is one of them.

266 Odds against the retards in the MSM pointing out the flaws in her premise, let alone the gross abuse of power it would constitute: 2.5 Billion to 1.

267

about 35 House members who could not be re-elected if the Irish Catholic vote wasn't reliable.

I find that a bit hard to believe. Do you have the data?

268 We really need more libertarian fights around here.

It's just no fun since it doesn't bring out the old school ones but teh crazie PaulNuts.

Thanks Doc!

269 DrewM:

See, this is the part I don't get about the right. You want to give the boot to the Scoz's and the rest of the RINOs because they're not down with anything to the right. That part makes sense, there's no real common ground between a lefty/"moderate" GOP'er and the rest of the party, especially the base.

Libertarians, on the other hand, agree with the right about 80% of the time, and on pretty much everything when it comes to fiscal or monetary policy, and you act like they're a bunch of unserious, unthinking idiots simply because they really really like freedom. You're just straight dicks to people whose only policy disagreements are over the drug war and other social-con shit.

It's really really stupid to treat libertarians as unserious. Libertarians do a ton of pro-capitalism grunt work. Cato, Reason, etc... all contribute a ton to the anti-Left fight. The best free-market args come from libertarians like Milton Friedman. There's a gigantic body of philosophical thought that's gone into libertarianism, and it's a fairly internally consistent belief set. What the fuck is your people's beef?

270 Kill tax exemption for churches.

271 You're just straight dicks to people whose only policy disagreements are over the drug war and other social-con shit.

An aside....This is what I love about this blog. Yesterday I was trying to kick social-cons out of the party, today I am doing their bidding.


DMXDroid,

Straight up libertarians usually have their hearts in the right place but unfortunately you guys often come across as the crazy uncle that makes everyone slightly uncomfortable.

Yes, 80% is cool but the other 20% is unrelated to actual life on this planet and American history.

No matter how great the 80% is, people will look at you like you have 3 heads if you start talking about privatizing roads, hospitals, fire departments and removing tax exemptions (to say nothing of some of the other items on the libertarian hit parade).

The simple fact is a party that is actually trying to get votes here in the real world can't be too closely aligned with that shit. Plus, there really aren't that many of you to make it worth while compared to the cost of embracing it. Also, who wants to take in people who will spend a lot of time yelling at you for be inauthentic and in the pocket of Big Brother.

272 DrewM:

I never said you were doing the social cons bidding. I said the only real points of disagreement were over social-con issues. That said, your calculus still strikes me as weird. Even if the 20% is unrelated to actual life on this planet (I disagree: drug war, privacy issues, lots of tech issues, etc.), doesn't that 80% make it worth sucking it up? Isn't it better to orient yourselves with people who are utopians 20% of the time than it is to hang w/ people who are just straight up Leftist 40% of the time?

Yes, the libertarian demographic is a little weird. Libertarians are a little weird. That doesn't make them wrong, it just means they view things a little differently.

Explain to me why privatizing roads and fire departments is non-serious, but talking about expanding government control of health care, giving trillion dollar bailouts to "banks", shattering the energy infrastructure of the country, and throwing pot heads in prison are somehow serious (ignore for a moment that these are all issues that libertarians take a pretty strong stance on). If it's just from a workability perspective, I think that private fire departments stand a far better chance of working out than, say TARP has, or BarryCare will. Anyone who comes up to me and says " I think that a government takeover of the entire health care/insurance industry will work out like gangbusters" is fucking _clearly_ out of their minds. But no, you don't treat them as brain addled relatives. It's the people that think that government is, generally, bad at what it does, and should do a lot less, even if we're used to government filling a particular role in society.

Even if you don't want them to hang in the party, you're ready enough to use their products of their intellectual labor. And you should, they do good work. So why not do that on righty blogs? Not making every libertarian feel like a herpes sore in comment threads doesn't mean you'd have to all of the sudden open up the Ludwig van Mises Wing of the party, or vote for their candidates or whatever.

I dunno, I guess it makes sense to you to pick stupid fights with people who are your natural allies. You know why that liberaltarian shit never got off the ground? Because libertarians fucking hate lefties, because libertarians love money, and for most libertarians, being right on economics comes first. It's easy to forgive someone for being pro-drug war when they're pro-free trade and low taxes. It's hard to forgive someone for being pro-redistribution because they hate the PATRIOT Act.

273 Of course they want to tax the Catholic Church. Leftist hate Catholics and Christians.  It is Muslims they defend and support. 

274 Just when I start posting, I notice this is a conservative/libertarian mud wrasling event.  Have your fun.  Indecently, the Catholic High School I went too 20yrs ago has only the amount of kids my class had in the entire school.  3/4 of the amount of  students are gone.  The Catholic Church is dwindling.  But the Muslims in America now?  You figure it out.

275 I love Catholics. I love Christians. (To the degree the individuals involved deserve it in my opinions, which is, in a great many cases, very much so.)

But... let them pay taxes on their clubs extolling the virtues of their relationships with their imaginary friends.

It's one hell of a racket telling kids they'll be burned in an imaginary fire unless they believe certain improbable things, and that they should also spend a certain percentage of their income in perpetuity to a "priest class" to go on teaching this insanity. Let them pay taxes on this business, which, unlike gambling, isn't even based on truth and offers little of actual value to the non-brainwashed.

Gambling is generally a ripoff, but a payoff remains a real possibility. And THEY pay taxes.

276 Ok
so, when will she start taking the ZAKAT the Mosques all clamor for?  Oh, she won't, that's right, after all Zakat funds anti-american terrror world-wide...
Besides, Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology that is hell bent on destroying civilization, much like she is...

277 Sure, it is a wracket. They all live in nice houses, have expensive cars, hot women or studley men, go to fancy night clubs,.......are we talking about libertarians or clergy?  I forget.
Morality and all that stuff, who gives a shit.
Me. me, me, me....

278

Call me cynical, but it occurred to me last night that, gee, I wonder if this healthcare package is just a sly and slippery back door method of obtaining long-sought-after reparations for descendants of slaves.

When one read some of the passages in that legislation, one is struck by the wiley extent to which those passages have been tailored to accommodate a specific minority more so than a majority of that legislation's intended recipients.

 Any astute observer has noticed in recent years, also, that the black caucus controls Congress, and except for handful of Blue Dog Democrats, other Democrats are too intimidated and too wassy to stand up to the black caucus; the most vocal and the most powerful group in the House Of Representatives.

 

279 Clinton actually had people audited by the IRS in order to achieve a political goal.  As for the catholic church, until they come out, LOUDLY, in support of the teachings of Christ (which include the sanctity of life)their numbers will continue to decline.

280

Sounds as simple and as trite as communism, doesn't it? Grownups can handle slightly more complicated ideas.

Yes. Like let's lower taxes and then explode spending and entitlements with debt financed by foreign nations, and destroy capitalism in order to save it.

I've got to give it to you, that's pretty complicated. If politics was a Rube Goldberg contest you win.

Seriously... your criticism here is "Too simple! Needs to be more convoluted to satisy my ego"?

As for libertarianism being something brand new and restricted to prosperous areas, how the hell do you define libertarianism? You're playing a semantical game. I'm sure it's useful for you rhetorically to define it as you see fit.

That's nothing new. Ask Roosevelt what liberal means, or ask Goldwater what conservative means.

It is amusing however, on the subject of Goldwater, that your entire modern political movement was pretty much started by a guy that was essentially one of those dumb-ass simple minded libertarians.

Is relativism a relatively new philosophy?

OK, how bout solipsism?

Is Hamlet existentialist? Did existentialism exist when Shakespear wrote Hamlet?

The philosophy of live and let live, the belief in self-determinism and the sovereignity of the individual, are not new ideas, nor ideas limited to the idle rich.

281 I wonder if the healthcare plan loving Catholic Church (Except for abortion) realizes the end game is to take away the church's role in health care and have everyone beholden to the government.

282

When will people wake up to the fact that with a few exceptions, abortion is birth control for people who are too stupid or are unwilling to take responsibililty for their behavior?  If YOU want an abortion, YOU pay for it!

283

It is amusing however, on the subject of Goldwater, that your entire modern political movement was pretty much started by a guy that was essentially one of those dumb-ass simple minded libertarians.

Well, not my modern political movement. Mine was started by guys such as Nock and Kirk in the "modern" era, and by Burke originally.

Goldwater was not really all that bright. The words people remember him for were written by others, notably Jaffa and Bozell.

284 Sockpuppet off.

285

ask Goldwater what conservative means.

I don't think he has/had a frickin' clue.

 

The philosophy of live and let live, the belief in self-determinism and the sovereignity of the individual, are not new ideas, nor ideas limited to the idle rich.

They're also not libertarian ideas. This sort of thing remnds me of the way liberals like to claim credit for every good thing that's ever happened, from sliced bread to sex.

DMX is making libertarian arguments. Do you agree or disagree with them? That's a more useful discussion than whether you want to define libertarianism as "all that's good". If libertarianis is so ancient, how come it never manifested itself until recently? It's not like the Founders believed in libertarian dogma.

286 DMXDroid,

This is my problem with libertarians, especially the capital L, you can rail all you want about how unfair it is but it's the world we live in. I'm not a Utopian, nor even a crusader. I'm to cynical and pragmatic for that.

While I'm personally sympathetic to many of the principles you espouse (if not some of their actual applications) I accept they are never going to be adopted and I have no interest in tilting at windmills. I think it's generally helpful that others do, it's just not my thing, nor is it a winning strategy for a real world political party.

I'm comfortable being out of the mainstream of political thought in this country. I think it's the job of conservatives, libertarians, etc, to offer alternatives and keep the GOP honest when possible but as a mass movement, the simple fact is it will never garner a majority of voters and expecting a mainstream party to internalize loosing propositions is stupid and a fools errand.

Bitch all you want about how dump most voters are (I'll agree in many cases) but that doesn't change the fact that they are the squishy majority to whom people actually trying to get votes have to cater to.

287 re my 289:

dump=dumb

Well, that was unfortunate. .

288 DrewM:

I'm not railing against the world or saying that anything is unfair. I'm saying it's flat out stupid to piss all over your natural allies because they occasionally express opinions that don't fall into the "what can government do to make all our lives better" category, especially when conservatives and the GOP crib from libertarian grunt work all the time.

Of course libertarianism will never be a majority philosophy. People like being controlled, or at least, feeling that the other guy is being controlled. Outlawing sodomy won't ever be a winning proposition either, but I don't see you or the GOP or anyone else kicking out the social cons. Why is it that it's OK to bring other coalitions in and extract some of their ideas that work, but, while it's fine to take libertarian ideas, they can't come to the club? The GOP is hardly a monolithic movement. Plus, if you believe that there's credence to the idea that the GOP is more successful when it behaves more like a small-government conservative party, why _wouldn't_ you want to at least engage people who are way better at being consistently pro-small government than anyone else?

My point is on that there's no reason that libertarians, just like social cons and wacky mid-west protectionists and east coast technocrats and beltway neo-cons, can't be welcomed into the fold, or at the very least not relegated to smoking alone in the kitchen. That doesn't mean that the GOP has to add ending the post office monopoly into its platform.

Whatever. I guess if your political calculation leads you to think that it's a good idea to be unnecessary dicks to anyone who shows a libertarian vein at a time when the GOP needs every dollar and vote it can get, I can't really argue about that.

289 It's all about matching tiffany co jewelry , and creating the best combination of colors for one's general dressing. It will help to buy what you need simpler, and you will be pleased that you just added some Tiffany diamond jewelry in your present rings selection.

290 Men and women when diamond, important stones, gold and platinum had been a common metals to discover the model of tiffany. They are funky, wise indeed secure in these imitation tiffany jewelry

291 "Obama's going to have a well-oiled, well-funded machine, no doubt
ดูทีวีออนไลน์คําคมภาษาอังกฤษเกมส์ตกปลาเกมส์วางระ เบิด 2เกมทําสปา

292 UK Advice, nationally recognised as a
Top NY cleaning service for office, commercial and residential properties. Get the best cleaning services in New York.คําโดนๆคําคมดูดวงรายวันทรงผมสั้นโปรแกรมแต่งรูปจีน"These distribution shifts are related to wetter and warmer conditions favouring the overwintering of A. albopictus in the north, and drier and warmer summers that might limit its southward expansion."