Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
Pharismo:
how many condidates there were on USA election? I know there were more then 2candidates or there werent?
zherok:
Depends on where you live, as some of the third party candidates aren't on ballots nationwide. There were a half dozen on mine (including Romney and Obama.)
Monkeyfinger:
I agree that religious and charitable organizations should never contribute to political campaigns. In fact, if they do they can and should lose their exempt status.
Both religious and charitable organizations are already heavily restricted under IRS regulation. They are 501(c)(3) organizations and they are not allowed to influence any legislation or participate in election activities. Straight from the IRS website. Why don't you get your panties in a wad over labor unions, which contribute almost exclusively to democrat political causes. Worse yet, in most states their members don't have a choice whether or not to pay dues, it's a condition of employment.
What would a religious establishment even report as income? Are you really so paranoid to think priests and rabbis are taking home big bonuses (on which they would still have to pay income taxes) if their donations exceed their expenses? And if they are, screw them. The government doesn't need to stick its fingers in every aspect of our lives. Taxing them is not the solution, and I would argue is in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
It is far more reprehensible that democrats don't give a rat's ass about economic stability, or people in general. You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific, yet somehow Obama and senate democrats get a pass on 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. So long as we can stick it to the rich and the religious, and we can get free condoms. This is somehow more important than being able to find a job?
zherok:
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 08, 2012, 11:12:23 PM ---I agree that religious and charitable organizations should never contribute to political campaigns. In fact, if they do they can and should lose their exempt status.
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8#Religious_organizations
--- Quote ---It is far more reprehensible that democrats don't give a rat's ass about economic stability, or people in general. You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific, yet somehow Obama and senate democrats get a pass on 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. So long as we can stick it to the rich and the religious, and we can get free condoms. This is somehow more important than being able to find a job?
--- End quote ---
Oh?
Seriously, you just ran a candidate who's "strong approach" to the deficit was to cut revenue and increase the military budget. We never got to find out how all the math zeroed out, nevermind actually paying down the deficit. Guess we'll never know.
I can only laugh at the not caring about people in general bit. Yes, the party that overwhelmingly got the support of most minority groups is clearly the bad guy here, not the party that talks about rape as part of God's will, or actively sought to curtail voting just to ensure the outcome in their favor.
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 08, 2012, 11:12:23 PM ---You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific
--- End quote ---
I don't know where you got horrific from. I very clearly pointed out how important deficits were for Republicans under Bush, and how important they view them now, under a Democrat. I'm talking Republican priorities, not how important I personally think the deficit is.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 08, 2012, 11:12:23 PM ---I agree that religious and charitable organizations should never contribute to political campaigns. In fact, if they do they can and should lose their exempt status.
Both religious and charitable organizations are already heavily restricted under IRS regulation. They are 501(c)(3) organizations and they are not allowed to influence any legislation or participate in election activities. Straight from the IRS website. Why don't you get your panties in a wad over labor unions, which contribute almost exclusively to democrat political causes. Worse yet, in most states their members don't have a choice whether or not to pay dues, it's a condition of employment.
--- End quote ---
First, religious organisations can endorse political causes all they want legally as long they don't explicitly endorse a party or a candidate. And even that they don't respect and openly challenge all the time and they receive no penalty in response.
Second, unions are not 501(c)(3) organisations. They are 501(c)(5) organisations and they don't have access to nearly as many tax breaks as religious organisations.
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 08, 2012, 11:12:23 PM ---What would a religious establishment even report as income? Are you really so paranoid to think priests and rabbis are taking home big bonuses (on which they would still have to pay income taxes) if their donations exceed their expenses? And if they are, screw them. The government doesn't need to stick its fingers in every aspect of our lives. Taxing them is not the solution, and I would argue is in violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
--- End quote ---
It's not paranoia. It's knowledge. Look there are frickin amusement par who gain their 501(c)(3) status just because they are religiously themed. I said, churches should be taxed the same way as a secular organisation performing the same activity would be. Meaning if the church is actually performing charities then they would have the same tax exempt status as a similar secular organisation, provided that they also open their books which they currently don't have to do contrarily to any other 501(c)(3) organisation.
And yes, priests living in fucking castles on your dime.
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 08, 2012, 11:12:23 PM ---It is far more reprehensible that democrats don't give a rat's ass about economic stability, or people in general. You talk about the Bush deficits as being horrific, yet somehow Obama and senate democrats get a pass on 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits. So long as we can stick it to the rich and the religious, and we can get free condoms. This is somehow more important than being able to find a job?
--- End quote ---
Oh you mean liberals so don't care about people that they want to provide them with education and healthcare while Republicans are so generous that they want to provide taxcut for the richests. Shuutz Y democratz hatez poeplez so mutch!?!
The federal expenditures haven't grown faster under Obama as they did under Bush. The only difference is that their tax income have crashed at the same time as the economy and stop fucking trying to blaming the economic crisis Obama. We both know he inherited it from Bush's administration.
And if you understood anything of Keynesian economics you'd stop complaining about the deficit under Obama. When there is an economic crisis increasing the states expenditures despite the deficit is the responsible thing to do and just like fighting the deficit is the responsible thing to do when the economy is going well. If you understood that, then you'd understand why Obama has had the biggest deficits in the middle of an recession and why Clinton had more or less the only equilibrated budgets in the last few decades when the economy was going well. You'd also understand just how incompetent republicans have been, digging the deficit even when the economy is going well and using the recession as an excuse for more austerity.
On other news: Did you guys know that Jill Stein have been arrested last week?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version