Inside Politics

(Knightshade/161315) Feb 22, 2012 15:23 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:29:00 -0600



Feb 22, 2012 15:23 from Puffergoose
Getting into the medical drug business is much more expensive.





Not really, no.

For example there's tons of companies in that business that have never employed
even a fraction of the # GM or Chrysler have.

Then there's the whole lack of giant factories with robots to build the cars
and all.

(Puffergoose/161314) Getting into the medical drug business is much more expensive. ...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:23:00 -0600

Getting into the medical drug business is much more expensive.  Creation of a
new auto company is much more possible today.  Difficult but not impossible and
if GM disappeared, the vaccume created would be more than sufficient to develop
a few new manufacturers.
In the end we end up with better products, the people have better jobs and
overall we would have been better off.

(Knightshade/161313) FWIW, I'm largely AGAINST the bank and other financial services ...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:52:00 -0600

FWIW, I'm largely AGAINST the bank and other financial services bailouts.  Let
the fuckers suffer and yes, deal with some greater economic pain for it.

The auto one though, in addition to ending up with a much lower net cost to the
taxpayers, had a vastly larger direct impact in preserving both US jobs and
domestic manufacturing capability.

(Knightshade/161312) they would have gone bankrupt and ceased operations. Putting ma...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:50:00 -0600

they would have gone bankrupt and ceased operations.  Putting many many
thousands out of work, not just at those failed companies but the hundreds of
smaller, otherwise succesful companies, who relied on supplying parts and
services to them.

The barrier to entry costs for auto making as astronomical, so it's not like
some plucky enterpenur could've parachutted in and said he was gonna start up a
new car company to instantly replace all those jobs and economic activity.

(go ask Preston Tucker how that idea worked for him)

(Puffergoose/161311) They would have gone bankrupt and emerged profitable and better ...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:42:00 -0600

They would have gone bankrupt and emerged profitable and better off.
OR they would have disolved to be replaced by new ventures and still would have
been better off.
Michigan is a poster child of what democrats in charge gives you.  High taxes
and unfriendly to business and you get.... Detroit.  Great.

(Knightshade/161310) Yes, returning to profitability is really terrible compared to g...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:23:00 -0600

Yes, returning to profitability is really terrible compared to going entirely
out of business... well argued!

(Puffergoose/161309) The bailout did more harm in Michigan and in no way "saved" it. ...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:17:00 -0600

The bailout did more harm in Michigan and in no way "saved" it.  Ford did great
but they didn't take the money.  GM and Christler has had to deal with the
strings attached to that money and it's been terrible for them.

(Copper Lethe/161308) Don't you think it's important to nominate a candidate who likes...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:21:00 -0600


Don't you think it's important to nominate a candidate who likes cars and has
strong opinions about the correct height of trees?

(Egregious/161307) I heard Romney's speech about how much he liked Michigan. It st...

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:06:00 -0600


I heard Romney's speech about how much he liked Michigan.  It started out
cute and within 10 seconds became very cringe-worthy.

This doesn't really matter in his effectiveness as Chief Executive, but
it sure does affect voter perception.

(Copper Lethe/161306) "Sorry to jump on you twice in two forums, but in both cases you...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:42:00 -0600


"Sorry to jump on you twice in two forums, but in both cases your posts have
shot wide of the mark. If you read carefully, he was talking about unemployment
benefits, not unemployment itself."

I didn't get that at all - in context, it would seem that we're clearly talking
at the federal level.  Since he didn't say "unemployment benefits," and since
unemployment benefits are paid at the state level, I didn't really get that at
all.

(The Great Godzilla/161305) Romney just strikes me as completely tone-deaf in a peculiar sor...

The Great Godzilla@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:08:00 -0600

Romney just strikes me as completely tone-deaf in a peculiar sort of way.
You're Mitt Romney; you've lost momentum, the people aren't really jacked into
your message, and Santorum is running an insurgent campaign on a shoestring and
making himself a nuisance or worse... and you'll give speeches condemning the
bailout while trying to win over voters in Michigan, one of the places where
the local economy was pretty much single-handedly SAVED by the bailouts?

And you wonder why Romney is having a tough time winning folks over?

(Steppenwolf/161304) all will probably be decided before Super Tuesday, in my view.

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:26:00 -0600

all will probably be decided before Super Tuesday, in my view.

If Romney wins Michigan and Ohio, he gets the nomination.

If Santorum wins Michigan and Ohio, he probably gets the nomination.

If they split the two states, Super Tuesday will be determinative, and probably
give Romney the win.

(Giraffe/161303) I think Mitt Romney is still the Republican with the best shot a...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:42:00 -0600

I think Mitt Romney is still the Republican with the best shot at beating
Obama. He's smarter than Santorum and would offer more compelling arguments
during debates against Obama. And I think in the end Romney will be the
nominee. I think Santorum's current moment in the sun will turn cloudy by Super
Tuesday. That's just my hunch.

(Miser/161302) I brought up Ron Paul specifically because he's a candidate in t...

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:37:00 -0600

I brought up Ron Paul specifically because he's a candidate in the GOP primary
and he has bucked his own party on that issue.  Not that I really believe he's
necessarily electable, but it just goes to show that honesty and consistentcy
isn't really what we (as a people) are after with the politicians we elect.

(MIKEY/161301) "Obama voted against it when he was a Senator." Say it was a ...

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:37:00 -0600

"Obama voted against it when he was a Senator."    Say it was a sign of a
failed Presidency as I recall.  Of course that changed once he got into office.

(Egregious/161300) The party in power always votes for it.

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:33:00 -0600


The party in power always votes for it.

The party out of power always votes against it.

Obama voted against it when he was a Senator.

(DesCartes/161299) That's what caused me to amend my question to "almost everybody....

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:32:00 -0600

That's what caused me to amend my question to "almost everybody." I figured
that he (and maybe a couple of others) might not have. But most people did,
right? It would have been unusual not to have voted for it? Or were there a
number of people in the minority party who did?

(Miser/161298) DesCartes>

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:29:00 -0600

DesCartes>
Ron Paul didn't.  :)

(DesCartes/161297) Didn't everybody vote to increase the debt ceiling every time it...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:25:00 -0600

Didn't everybody vote to increase the debt ceiling every time it came up, until
this past summer? (Well, nearly everybody.) Or were there a significant number
of dissenting voters?

(Miser/161296) Step>

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:22:00 -0600

Step>
I was referring to this, from DrMemory:

" His negative ads, which were really effective with Newt, don't seem to be
doing much damage to Santorum.   I saw one that was attacking Santorum for
voting to increase the deficit ceiling.  That's the best they can find?"

I agree with Knightshade that, yes, that's probably the best they can find that
would actually bring a frown to Republicans in general.  But that seems like a
pretty effective ad if Santorum really has a Tea Party following.

(Steppenwolf/161295) What do you mean by that, Miser? The debt ceiling attacks, I mea...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:20:00 -0600

What do you mean by that, Miser? The debt ceiling attacks, I mean. I agree both
that Santorum isn't a typical Tea Partier on fiscal issues and that he for some
mysterious reason is doing very well among self-professed Tea Party voters,
probably because a bunch of them are thinly-disguised social conservatives
after all.

(Miser/161294) If Santorum is supposed to be the Tea Party vote, the debt ceili...

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:11:00 -0600

If Santorum is supposed to be the Tea Party vote, the debt ceiling attacks may
well be hitting their target.

(Egregious/161293) > will the GOP purists be able to say that it was because he was...

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:08:00 -0600


> will the GOP purists be able to say that it was because he was not
> conservative enough?

The crackpots _always_ think it was because the candidates weren't
conservative (or progressive) enough.

If the economy improves in time like it looks like it will do, though,
Obama's gonna win.  Unless gas prices are high.  Not that either of
those are good ways to measure a president, but voters think they are.

(Knightshade/161292) Yeah, the problem is most the shit that shows Santorum as bugshi...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:04:00 -0600

Yeah, the problem is most the shit that shows Santorum as bugshit crazy is
stuff you can't put in a republican primary negative ad, becuase much of it is
shit the "base" loves

(DrMemory/161291) Most of the pundits still seem to be thinking that Romney can sp...

DrMemory@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:01:00 -0600

Most of the pundits still seem to be thinking that Romney can spend his way
back into 1st place, but I'm not very sure about that.  His main attraction to
the party was his ability to appeal to independents, and the latest polls show
that appeal plummeting.

 His negative ads, which were really effective with Newt, don't seem to be
doing much damage to Santorum.   I saw one that was attacking Santorum for
voting to increase the deficit ceiling.  That's the best they can find?

If Santorum does get the nomination and loses to Obama, will the GOP purists be
able to say that it was because he was not conservative enough?

(Steppenwolf/161290) This is a "hypothetical?" Seems awfully close to reality. In whi...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:30:00 -0600

This is a "hypothetical?" Seems awfully close to reality. In which case the
answer is either "No," or "We're in the process of it now."

(Text/161289) Wanna throw out a hypothetical, and again, this is strictly with...

Text@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:54:00 -0600

Wanna throw out a hypothetical, and again, this is strictly within the context
of the current Republican primary.

If Romney suddenly appeared only slightly more electable in a general election
than Rick Santorum, wouldn't Romney collapse almost virtually overnight?

(Steppenwolf/161288) I didn't get that from his post, CL.

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:44:00 -0600

I didn't get that from his post, CL.

Sorry to jump on you twice in two forums, but in both cases your posts have
shot wide of the mark. If you read carefully, he was talking about unemployment
benefits, not unemployment itself.

(Copper Lethe/161287) "It's comforting to know that at least one supporter of Presiden...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:42:00 -0600


"It's comforting to know that at least one supporter of President Obama doesn't
believe that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting worse."

You drew a conclusion from a question that I asked, which is really strange.
I did not say "We do not have problems which are getting worse."  I asked
"Which problems are getting worse?"

I specifically asked MIKEY this, since he appears to hold the opinion that
declining unemployment is a problem that needs to be addressed.

(Marigolds/161285) "Add liquor stores to the list where you cannot use your EBT car...

Marigolds@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:09:00 -0600

"Add liquor stores to the list where you cannot use your EBT card."
The only store within a mile of where i live that carries groceries is a liquor
store, which is, in turn, surrounded by apartments that have no grocery store
within at least 2 miles.
The new policies would certainly suck for any employees of those establishments
who receive benefits.

(Salamano/161284) "Which problems are getting worse?"

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:23:00 -0600


"Which problems are getting worse?"

It's comforting to know that at least one supporter of President Obama doesn't
believe that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting worse.

(MIKEY/161283) Read for content...the subject was the budget. Water quality ma...

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:29:00 -0600

Read for content...the subject was the budget.  Water quality may be getting
better too but that was not the subject of discussion either.

(Copper Lethe/161282) Unemployment has been steadily decreasing for more than 2 years ...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:24:00 -0600


Unemployment has been steadily decreasing for more than 2 years now.
Which problems are getting worse?

(MIKEY/161281) Was a political joke..ie..no tax money for strip clubs but the p...

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:17:00 -0600

Was a political joke..ie..no tax money for strip clubs but the payroll tax cut
continues, medicare spending continues, unemployment continues, etc  none of
which helps with the budget issue.   Everyone feels good but the problems get
worse.

(Gespalder/161280) Add liquor stores to the list where you cannot use your EBT card...

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:18:00 -0600

Add liquor stores to the list where you cannot use your EBT card.

(Steppenwolf/161279) I don't know that preventing people from using EBT at strip club...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:13:00 -0600

I don't know that preventing people from using EBT at strip clubs is a step
towards balancing the budget. C'mon.

(MIKEY/161278) Balancing the budget on the backs of strip clubs! What a great ...

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:12:00 -0600

Balancing the budget on the backs of strip clubs!  What a great system.

(Miser/161277) Sounds like a step in the right direction. Who ever thought it ...

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:08:00 -0600

Sounds like a step in the right direction.  Who ever thought it was a good idea
(or even OK) to allow EBT funds to be spent that way to begin with??  Is the
payroll tax cut deal pretty much done then?

I saw this morning that President Karzai has said the US and Afghanistan is
definitely in talks with the Taliban to end the war.  I'm sure we're all
looking forward to Afghanistan returning to exactly the way it was before the
war.  On the upside, at least we're finally going to GTFO.

(Gespalder/161276) The Payroll Tax Cut will be renewed through the end of the year ...

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:57:00 -0600

The Payroll Tax Cut will be renewed through the end of the year via bipartisan
agreement. This agreement also prevents cuts to medicare payments to doctors
and it keeps long term unemployment benefits in place.
Also, EBT cards can no longer be used to withdraw cash from ATMs nor can they
be used at casinos or strip clubs.

(Salamano/161275) "Cynicism?"

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:18:00 -0600


"Cynicism?"

How about *realism?*

(Yorick/161274) I'd love to see Santorum v. Obama result in Gary Johnson under t...

Yorick@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:20:00 -0600

I'd love to see Santorum v. Obama result in Gary Johnson under the L
getting poll numbers someone will actually listen to him.
What besides cynicism is keeping him off people's radar?

Many have said Paul is unlikely to go L again because of young
Paul, and I think that's probably right.

(WORF/161273) Feb 14, 2012 10:27 from Kena

WORF@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:13:00 -0600


Feb 14, 2012 10:27 from Kena
Hmmm.  I just realized something.  Assuming that Romney was going to win the
republican nod, as a social liberal/fiscal conservative, I was okay with that,
but feeling pretty apathetic about the whole thing.  If Santorum somehow
manages to win it, I'm 100% voting for Obama, and making sure my friends do,
too.
[Inside Politics> msg #161265 (6 remaining)] Read cmd ->



That was pretty much me the last election, just replace Santorum with Palin.

Personally I'd love to see Ron Paul in the White house as I think he has some
good fiscal policy ideas and his more isolationist foreign policy ideas would
natually be tempered by reality and Congress.

At this point I have no worries that Santorum will get the nod as the
Republican retreat on the SS tax discount issue was basically the GOP
establishment telling the Tea Party to go fuck themselves.

By voting to extend the temporary tax cut without any way to pay for it, the
GOP is taking action to directly increase the debt. Granted, the Dems are
complicit, but you expect that from Dems.

The GOP and TP were supposedly going in with a "fiscally conservative" mandate
after the last midterms. Guess that shit is out the door.

Since Santorum basically has the TP behind him and Romney has the non-TP GOP,
Romney will get the nod from the party.

(Salamano/161272) Kena>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:53:00 -0600


Kena>>

What do you see as the key differences between Santorum, Romney and Gingrich on
major policy matters (and/or policies that are most important to you,
personally)?

(Egregious/161270) And that's why Romney is called "electable" so much. Santorum p...

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:32:00 -0600


And that's why Romney is called "electable" so much.  Santorum probably
would be a landslide defeat.

(Tomte/161269) While I'd like to see Obama win a second term, I would not want ...

Tomte@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:17:00 -0600

While I'd like to see Obama win a second term, I would not want to take the
risk of Santorum on the ballot even if it would possibly drive people to OBama.

You never know what is going to be an issue right before election time. 
Especially if the economy gets worse Obama is vulnerable.

(Steppenwolf/161268) I disagree; he won't have Congress on his side most likely, mean...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:41:00 -0600

I disagree; he won't have Congress on his side most likely, meaning that he
won't have the power to push people around with his "mandate."

(Guardian Angel/161267) I suspect if Santorum gets the nomination, it will be a landslid...

Guardian Angel@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:04:00 -0600

I suspect if Santorum gets the nomination, it will be a landslide victory for
Obama, who WILL govern as if he was given a mandate, as opposed to "Holy FUCK
are we not voting for THAT GUY!!"

(Knightshade/161266) I suspect you're not alone in that

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:34:00 -0600

I suspect you're not alone in that

(Kena/161265) Hmmm. I just realized something. Assuming that Romney was goin...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:00 -0600

Hmmm.  I just realized something.  Assuming that Romney was going to win the
republican nod, as a social liberal/fiscal conservative, I was okay with that,
but feeling pretty apathetic about the whole thing.  If Santorum somehow
manages to win it, I'm 100% voting for Obama, and making sure my friends do,
too.

(Knightshade/161264) Has any budget initially proposed by a US president passed uncha...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:15:00 -0600

Has any budget initially proposed by a US president passed unchanged...ever?

Because I think the answer is no, which makes your question pretty stupid.

(Gespalder/161260) From what I am hearing of the President's proposed budget:

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:42:00 -0600

From what I am hearing of the President's proposed budget:

1) AF, Army and Marines take some hits (personnel and cargo planes)
1A) AF gets to keep up work on the latest bomber (can be piloted remotely)
2) Navy gets to keep all 11 carriers
3) Missions to the ISS will now originate from Baikonur (what are we paying the
   Russians?)
3A) The massively over budget James Webb Space Telescope keeps getting more
    funding
3B) Money is slashed for planetary missions for the most part. The budget even
    calls for the U.S. to break commitments we've already made with the ESA for
    missions to Mars
4) Medicare and Medicaid will see some cuts (mostly in Home Health Care)
5) There willbe money for the EPA to determine, scientifically, what Fracking
   is doing to the environment
6) Cuts are proposed for fossil fuel subsidies (coal and oil were specifically
   mentioned but I'd think natural gas was included)

It is being predicted that this budget won't make it through Congress.

While I like the EPA getting money to look at what fracking is doing to the
environment and I like cuts in fossil fuel subsidies I didn't hear anything
about subsidies for renewable energy.
Also, if we want a robust space program why are basically shuttering the launch
facilities we have (Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg nd that launch facility we
built in Alaska) with the exception of military launches?
The Medicare/Medicaid reform does mean closing some loopholes but if we can
close some why not close them all?
And while the James Webb Space Telescope is nice, why are we rewarding the
folks who are constantly over budget? And yes, I know, we do it for the
military all the time.

What do you think? Does this budget have a snowballs chance in hell of passing?

(Knightshade/161258) I'm just saying, the last time he stood for election in PA, he g...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:40:00 -0600

I'm just saying, the last time he stood for election in PA, he get his ass beat
worse than someone playing the globetrotters... so maybe it's not a slam dunk
as you initially suggested.

(Okracoke/161257) Rick Santorum was elected Senator twice in state wide races for ...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:36:00 -0600

Rick Santorum was elected Senator twice in state wide races for Senate in PA.
He was elected twice from a Democratic district near Pittsburgh. After winning
four races, Rick Santorum did lose in 2006, during a very tough year for
Republicans in general and specifically because he supported the Iraq War. Rick
Santorum has a very good chance to win PA.... Mitt Romney no chance.

(Knightshade/161256) Santorum couldn't even get re-elected to congress in PA, so I th...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:28:00 -0600

Santorum couldn't even get re-elected to congress in PA, so I think you might
be overselling him a bit...

In fact he was kinda crushed in his attempt... worse loss by an any incumbent
senator in over 25 years....and the largest losing margin for an incumbent
republican senator EVER.

(Okracoke/161255) But Rick Santorum would have a good chance to win Pennsylvania a...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:24:00 -0600

But Rick Santorum would have a good chance to win Pennsylvania and Ohio. There
are few scenarios for an Obama will that do not include Pennsylvania.

(Knightshade/161254) To be fair, that's more about what state it is than who is runni...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:09:00 -0600

To be fair, that's more about what state it is than who is running.

Other than Reagan, who was INSANELY popular, no republican presidential
candidate has won Mass. in over 50 years.

(Okracoke/161253) Rick Santorum is so much the better candidate than Mitt Romney. ...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:52:00 -0600

Rick Santorum is so much the better candidate than Mitt Romney. Rick has 16
years experience in the House and the Senate and a solid conservative record
with a great family. Rick is a smooth talker who can handle himself in debates
and on the Sunday talk shows. Rich will do well head to head against Obama.
Rick is 53 years old and has a great TV appearance. Mitt Romney is a 65 years
old stale looking retired hedge fund manager with a record of positions that
are all over the map. Mitt's handlers won't even let him appear on Sunday talk
shows for fear of what will come out of his mouth. No contest.

The delegate contest will be razor close. Mitt Romney is expected to do well in
western states with large Mormon populations, Arizona, California, Utah. Rick
Santorum will really have to rack up big wins across the industrial midwest and
Pennslyvania. New York will go for their financial industry sidekick Mitt.
Therefore the Southeast will be absolutely essential for Rick Santorum.
Georgia, Alabama, Miss, Louisiana, Tennessee will have to put aside their
objections to a Northeast Catholic and vote for Rick. Romney's team has already
claimed Virginia by manouvering to keep all other names off the ballot.

If Mitt Romney wins tha delegate count by devious tactics, while Rick Santorum
wins in enthusiasm and popular vote, then the Republicans really have a problem
in the fall. The election will be conceded virtually to Obama and Candidate
Romney will get about as much traction as Bob Dole got in 1996.... except Bob
Dole won his home state of Kansas while Romney has no change to win Mass.

(Steppenwolf/161252) In real Inside> news, I see Santorum's up 6 points in Michigan o...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:25:00 -0600

In real Inside> news, I see Santorum's up 6 points in Michigan over Romney. In
MICHIGAN. You know, Romney's ex-home state.

This could yet be entertaining.

(Steppenwolf/161251) Lochner:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:16:00 -0600

Lochner:

Real quick on the mandate, one of the arguments against it is that inaction
doesn't count as commerce, so not buying insurance doesn't fall under the
Commerce Clause.

But speaking realistically, to say that the government can't compel someone to
act against religious beliefs is a quick jaunt to chaos. What if, for example,
Jesus had said "Render unto God what belongs to God, and screw Caesar"? What if
someone had religious beliefs that said it was immoral to pay taxes, or to pay
taxes if a black man was executive? To have a photo ID in order to drive on the
roads?

The government engages in prescription all the time; to allow religious
exemption for any law is utterly infeasible. Scalia's rule in _Smith_ is
probably the only defensible one, though I once came up with some fun
adjustments to it that can be discussed in other forums.

(Spastic Chicken/161250) I think you mean GEORGE Stephanopoulos.

Spastic Chicken@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:38:00 -0600

I think you mean GEORGE Stephanopoulos.

(Okracoke/161249) Rick Santorum is now hinting that Mitt Romney's win was rigged i...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:22:00 -0600

Rick Santorum is now hinting that Mitt Romney's win was rigged in the CPAC
straw poll yesterday    http://tinyurl.com/89ctzpn

The New York Times is reporting that the Romney campaign bussed in hundreds of
Mormon college students to the CAPC convention and paid their tickets in order
to pump up the Romney vote      http://tinyurl.com/7h87sm3

Senator Santorum is a cool customer on the Sunday talk shows. On ABC's "This
Week" this morning, Greg Stephanpoulus tried to trip up Senator Santorum but
couldn't ding him at all. Political observers note that Gov. Romney declines to
appear on Sunday talk week after week. Greg Stephanopoulus is a tough
interviewer and would filet Romney like a fish.

(Steppenwolf/161248) "Obamacare mandates that everyone buy health insurance and that ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:26:00 -0600

"Obamacare mandates that everyone buy health insurance and that insurance
companies are required to write you a policy."

False. Though close. But still false.

"... based on the theory that pregnancy is a disease, which must be
prevented."

False. Indeed, a bald-faced lie.

"An American citizen, who may have
strong moral objections to birth control, is being forced to pay for free birth
control coverage..."

I have strong objections to a lot of things I'm required to pay for, Lochner's
fungibility argument aside.

"This is
not capitalism, this is Marxism, and I mean Groucho, not Karl."

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the capitalism question.

(Okracoke/161247) As Rick Santorum elegantly said, "When government gives you righ...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:02:00 -0600

As Rick Santorum elegantly said, "When government gives you rights, they can
coerce you in doing things in exercising the rights that they gave you."

Obamacare mandates that everyone buy health insurance and that insurance
companies are required to write you a policy. This in itself is troubling and
will face Supreme Court review this spring.

Now the Obama Administration, having acquired the power to force Americans to
buy health insurance, has now decreed that that insurance must include free
birth control, based on the theory that pregnancy is a disease, which must be
prevented. On the face of it, this is absurd. An American citizen, who may have
strong moral objections to birth control, is being forced to pay for free birth
control coverage from a private insurance company which is required to provide
that free birth control regardless of whether the employer, the employee, and
the insurance company may be forced to violate their religious beliefs. This is
not capitalism, this is Marxism, and I mean Groucho, not Karl.

(Lochner/161246) I'm not sure I follow you, I don't know the details of the manda...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:52:00 -0600


I'm not sure I follow you, I don't know the details of the mandate.  I'm just
asking at a general level whether it's fair to equivocate between preventing
somebody from practicing a religious ceremony and requiring them to take some
affirmative step to violate a religious belief, as far as First Amendment
rights go.  I'm not convinced that it is.  Saying it's nothing more than
"adherence to the law" begs the question.

I do think it's different than the tax dollars issue, because a dollar is
fungible.  You could say $0 of conscientious objectors go to defense, they all
go to something else and some other person makes up the difference.

Here, we're talking about an requirement that an organization engage in
affirmative conduct in violation of religious beliefs.  I see that differently
than preventing a particular religious practice.

(Steppenwolf/161245) Lochner:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:47:00 -0600

Lochner:

Is that the action/inaction distinction we see in the mandate as well?
Honestly, I don't think it flies here, less so than in the health care
question. This isn't different, religiously, than forcing the tax dollars of
conscientious objectors to go to defense. And the key, more than anything else,
is simple adherence to the law.

(Steve Austin/161244) Step>

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:30:00 -0600

Step>

Given that...

1) Most religious people use contraception, regardless of their religion's
teachings on the issue

2) Poll after poll indicates a clear majority in support of the HHS mandate

And 3) Some religion-affiliated businesses already offer this coverage
(including, so I've read, some Catholic hospitals)

....I'm left to wonder: exactly whose religious liberties are being violated?

(Lochner/161243) Isn't there a difference, though, between COMPELLING somebody to...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:27:00 -0600


Isn't there a difference, though, between COMPELLING somebody to violate a
religious brief and PREVENTING somebody from performing a religious ceremony in
a particular manner?

(Steve Austin/161242) One wonders just how far Okracoke (and others) would be willing ...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:22:00 -0600

One wonders just how far Okracoke (and others) would be willing to take their
support of "religious liberty".

The idea presented here is that ANY business run by a person or group of faith
should be able to run their business in any way they see fit under the guise of
religious liberty.

Does it really end with saying, "You don't have to provide your employees with
complete health coverage, including birth control" ?

Would it be okay for a religious employer to say, "I'm not hiring women/blacks
/gays"?  Could a religious employer pay them less or give them unequal working
conditions when compared to straight white males?

What this, uhm, minority doesn't seem (can't?) understand is that religious
liberty (like all freedoms) has its necessary limits.  The public good >
religious liberty...and, in this case, providing people with access to
contraception is in the public interest.

(Steppenwolf/161241) I don't even know where to begin with the untruths and misleadin...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:22:00 -0600

I don't even know where to begin with the untruths and misleading statements in
Okracoke's posts. But that no one is claiming a "right to free birth control"
is a good start. So is the religious liberty question, since Okracoke doesn't
have the guns to deal with the _Smith_ argument and he knows it. If the
government can force people not to use peyote, then it can mandate that all
employer-provided insurance include birth control. (Less federalism concerns,
but we'll leave those behind for now.)

(Lochner/161240) A conservative quoting O.W. Holmes on the law? The same Holmes ...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:14:00 -0600

A conservative quoting O.W. Holmes on the law?  The same Holmes who eviscerated
the idea of economic rights and set in the motion the common law deconstruction
of the constitution that began with his dissent in Lochner v. New York and
ended with J&L Steel?

Oi vey, how far the mighty have fallen.

(Okracoke/161239) The Obama administration, through Obamacare, has fabricated a ri...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:40:00 -0600

The Obama administration, through Obamacare, has fabricated a right to free
birth control/sterilization for all Americans. This "free" birth control must
be paid for by your employer through mandated health insurance. Opposed to this
is the First Amendment Religious liberties we all respect.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other
man's nose begins."....So how shall we balance these rights? On one hand, we
have the First Amendment Religious liberties that have made Americans proud for
over 200 years. On the other hand we have a recently fabricated "right to free
birth control" created by secular progressives who aim to expand the Federal
govt's reach into our private religious beliefs and take precendence over those
beliefs. It is clear that this is a massive over-reach by the Obama
Administration. It must be stopped either by legislation or voting Obama out.

(Steve Austin/161238) Okracoke> It has nothing to do with a "right to free contracept...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:34:00 -0600

Okracoke>  It has nothing to do with a "right to free contraception".

The government recognizes that there are a multitude of unnecessary economic
and social costs that occur as a result of unwanted pregnancies, and it also
recognizes that the cost of providing contraception is much smaller in scale.

Catholic leaders, and religious leaders in general, need to get their bloody
heads out of the sand and realize that this dream of people fucking only for
procreation isn't just a myth and fallacy today...it NEVER EXISTED.  People
have ALWAYS fucked for pleasure, even those who profess to be religious.

You say that there are religious/moral objections -- where are they coming
from?  Virtually every Catholic has used some form of birth control in their
life, ranging from contraception to sterilization.  Poll after poll in recent
days -- including one done by FOX News -- have shown that a significant
majority favor this mandate...even those who identify as Catholic (or religious
in general).

What we have here isn't a case of assault on religious "liberty" -- it's an
attempt by an extreme minority who want to control and exert influence on
people they can't otherwise reach and people who don't "follow the rules".

Catholic bishops, in particular, can't handle the fact that they're losing
money by the billions because of their pedophilia-enabling ways, that they're
losing worshippers by the thousands (millions?) and that parish after parish is
shutting its doors.

Rather than offer solutions to the Church's real problems and rather than
modernize and accept reality in some areas...the Church would rather try to
dial back the clock to some mythical time that never existed where people are
mindless, chaste church-goers who derive no pleasure whatsoever from sex.

The Catholic Church doesn't want to listen to its followers?  Good.  I hope
they enjoy empty churches, because this Catholic is tired of the bull -- and I
know I'm not the only one.

(Steppenwolf/161237) The contraception rule isn't an attack on the First Amendment, t...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:58:00 -0600

The contraception rule isn't an attack on the First Amendment, thanks to
precedent from a case whose majority opinion was written by Justice SCalia.

Employment Division v. Smith. Native Americans wanted to use peyote for their
religious ceremonies, but the state criminalized peyote's use by ANYONE. A
serious, major violation of the Native Americans' rights.

Scalia said that this was fine, as long as the rule was neutral (i.e. no
discriminatory intent) and generally applicable instead of very narrowly drawn.

So there ya go: if you can't pass a general law that happens to go against some
people's beliefs, you have to let Native Americans use peyote.


This precedent is why few if any conservatives are really arguing First
Amendment issues here.

(Okracoke/161236) The Obama Administration imagines that there is a right to have ...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:42:00 -0600

The Obama Administration imagines that there is a right to have free
contraception and they are prepared to use the force of the state to bulldoze
religious and moral objections. This birth control mandate is a direct assault
on the First Amendment. We are witnessing the power of the amoral secular state
attempting to stomp out religious institutions that may compete for the
attentions of American citizens. Caesar is no longer content with what we have
rendered onto Him, but wants more.

(Steve Austin/161235) Gwynn> I'm not blaming Obama for the stance of the bishops -- t...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:20:00 -0600

Gwynn>  I'm not blaming Obama for the stance of the bishops -- that was my
point, they were never going to be satisfied with compromise.  So, why
compromise to begin with?  All it does is make Obama look weak, and that fetish
with bipartisan attempts to get along with those who won't compromise under any
circumstance is one of the reasons why many of his supporters are
unsatisfied...and why he hasn't necessarily been able to accomplish all that he
set out to do.

In other words, it's not the problem itself, but it's certainly a symptom of
it.

(Okracoke/161234) This is solely about religious liberty and the first amendment:

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:27:00 -0600

This is solely about religious liberty and the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If the Federal Govt. forces the Catholic Church to provide free
contraception/sterilization, services which are deeply contrary to Catholic
dogma, this is a violation of the First Amendment. The Obama Administration has
made a serious miscalculation thinking they could slip the birth control
mandate under the radar. On "This Week" on ABC this morning, Donna Brazile, who
is Catholic, stressed that Catholic Bishops make no moral distinction between
birth control, sterlization, or abortion....they are all mortal sins and all
completely contrary to the Catholic Faith. The compromise proposed by President
Obama on Friday was dismissed as an "accounting gimmick" or a shell game.

Both the House and Senate have proposed legislation against the birth control
mandate, the "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011". The Senate
version, S.1467 already has 36 co-sponsors. Believe me, neither Democratic
House nor Democratic Senate member want to take a vote on this.

(Gwynn/161233) I sort of see why you'd say that, but I don't think Obama is "em...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:33:00 -0600

I sort of see why you'd say that, but I don't think Obama is "emboldening", (is
that even a damn word?), anybody. Well, maybe he is, but I don't think the
primary problem is the Catholic hierarchy going "ha, we got him on the run
boys!" The position taken by the hierarchy is their standard position on the
matter. Hell I know a Catholic priest from Kenya, and that's pretty much his
position, Obama's stance is just all kinds of immoral and whatever.

My point is, they were never going to compromize in the first place. They
weren't going to be happy with anything halfway, as they'd see it. Their
position is that birth control Etc. is just wrong, period, full stop, end of
story. Hell you can tell this from Lochner's story, it's OK if you start
getting a blowjob, but you'd damn well better finish in such a way that you can
potentially make some babies, or it's wrong. I think it's an easy thing to
blame Obama's attempts at bipartisonship, as it were, but in this case, I think
it's entirely wrong.

(Steve Austin/161232) And that, my friends, is the idiotic logic of the religious (far...

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:40:00 -0600

And that, my friends, is the idiotic logic of the religious (far) right.

It never was about religious liberty.  It doesn't matter who is actually
providing the coverage.

If these old white men have their way, no insurance company anywhere will offer
birth control or anything similar.

And this is where the frustration that many on the left have with Obama comes
into play.  Far too often in his administration, Obama has been so emphatic
about reaching across the aisle and trying to reach bipartisan consensus that
he does nothing more than embolden his enemies -- the politicians who will
NEVER support him or anything he does.

In this case, the Catholic bishops see blood in the water.  They have already
gotten Obama to cave this much, and they figure that what appears to be (but
really isn't) strong public sentiment against the mandate will ultimately cause
him to get rid of it entirely.

The point being this -- Obama should have never caved even this much,
especially to these knuckle-dragging, pedophile-enabling hypocrites.

(Okracoke/161231) Uh oh... the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has rejected Pres...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:47:00 -0600

Uh oh... the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has rejected President Obama's
efforts to compromise on the Obamacare birth control mandate. See News About
Politics> for complete article.

The real conceptual problem in Obamacare is that birth control/sterilization is
defined as a 'preventative service' and therefore mmust be provided free of
charge by health insurance companies. The Bishops observed succinctly:

"All the other mandated 'preventative services' prevent disease, and pregnancy
is not a disease"

This is the real heart of the issue. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gave a
virtuouso performance in tortured logic on Friday when she noted that health
insurance companies will actually save money by providing free mandated birth
control, "because preventing a pregnancy saves money in health care costs".
Well, by that logic, the govt. should mandate that all pregnancies should be
aborted because it would save ever so much money spent on obstretics and
delivery room charges. How can such pathetic statements pass for public
discourse? How is it that exterminating fetuses masquerades as women's health?

(Steppenwolf/161230) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:54:00 -0600

Sal:

"You mean *your* default answer is "no.""

No, I mean that it's an easy answer to avoid "entanglement."

(Gespalder/161229) And Romney wins another one. How many more must he win before th...

Gespalder@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:41:00 -0600

And Romney wins another one. How many more must he win before the other
candidates cannot catch up to him?

Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster says Mitt Romney has won the
Maine caucuses by a slim margin, giving him a much needed boost following
losses in three other contests in the past week.

(Steve Austin/161228) Frankly, that's bullshit.

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:52:00 -0600

Frankly, that's bullshit.

If Santorum and others on the "Religious Right" get their way, no health
insurance company/plan anywhere will be able to offer birth control /
contraceptives or pay for abortion.

This has nothing to do with religious liberty but rather the exercise of
religious power and control through the elimination of "reproductive rights".

(Okracoke/161227) Under Governor Romneys's watch the State of Massachussetts set u...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:51:00 -0600

Under Governor Romneys's watch the State of Massachussetts set up a requirement
for mandating that all hospitals provide contraceptives including the plan B
abortion pill for rape victims:

http://tinyurl.com/6u5cexp

Senator Rick Santorum's work in the House and Senate was instrumental in
creating Health Savings Accounts. These HSA accounts are the best solution to
the dilemma of forcing religious institutions to provide contraception. It
would be better to require all employers to make regular contributions to their
employee's HSA Accounts. Then the employee could use the HSA to buy
contraception without forcing the religious organization to provide a service
which offends their moral positions. The money would be at arms length.

Romney gets a Pinoccio on this one...res ipsa loquitor. Rick Santorum 2012!

(Lochner/161225 Forum Moderator) Please send posts about political issues and theory in Political...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:09:00 -0600


Please send posts about political issues and theory in Political Issues and
Theory>.  Such posts are on topic here only to the extent necessary to avoid
interrupting discussions about Inside Politics>.  We're talking pure political
theory at this point, so it's time to shuffle on over to PI&T>.

I'd also like to encourage us all to elevate the civility of our discourse
(yes, myself included).  We're entering the thick of campaign season, there are
many polarizing figures involved, let's try not to make it personal or we'll be
at each other's throats by August.

(Copper Lethe/161224) "The employee could put $50 in a savings account and spend it no...

Copper Lethe@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:11:00 -0600


"The employee could put $50 in a savings account and spend it no matter how
ever
they want.  Flex spending cards are not exactly any kind of health service.
They could take that and buy doughnuts.  If you say it has to be used for a
medical use, then the company should be able to regulate that and it still
reflects the norms and values of the company."

You cannot use a flex spending account to buy donuts.  You can only spending
money put into a flex spending account on items which are approved for purchase
under that plan.  An FSA has to be used for medical purchases, and that's
already regulated, so allowing a company to decide what employees spend that
money on is unnecessary.

"Ding ding ding, you used the magic word that is the big problem of so many of
the problems with Obama.  DICTATING!  Our dictator decrees that these people
have to do this or that and that is a big problem."

Dictator?  You do know that President Obama neither wrote nor passed the health
care law, right?

Have you ever heard of Congress, Puffergoose?  Are you familiar with the idea
of representative democracy?

"The founders only believe in 3 unalienable rights.  Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness and Democrats work hard to infringe and violate all three
with the use of government. "

This is absolutely false, Puffergoose, and if you'd have ever read the
Declaration of Independence, you'd know that are founders did not believe in
only three unalienable rights.  If fact, they use language that makes it quite
clear that they do not believe in only three unalienable rights.  I recommend
taking a second look at 8th grade US History.

(Puffergoose/161223) I understand Lochner, you are tired of losing.

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:15:00 -0600

I understand Lochner, you are tired of losing.
The Declaration of Independence is the first founding document of our country.
Yes, the founders did believe in individual rights and understood that the best
stewards of individual rights is the people.  We tend not to want to give away
our own rights.  Kings, dictators, ruling classes.... if the power is in their
hands, they have no problem taking away individual rights from society.

(Puffergoose/161222) Hey, and those are only considered unalienable if you believe in...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:28:00 -0600

Hey, and those are only considered unalienable if you believe in a creator
because the founders that these are the rights bestowed on us by our creator.
If we have no creator, then they are just myths as well.

(DesCartes/161221) A pre-Lenten resolution?

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:26:00 -0600

A pre-Lenten resolution?

(DrMemory/161220) I commend the good judgement of your new policy. ;)

DrMemory@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:11:00 -0600

I commend the good judgement of your new policy. ;)

(Lochner/161219) "The founders only believe in 3 unalienable rights. Life, Liber...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:59:00 -0600


"The founders only believe in 3 unalienable rights.  Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness"

  Pursuant of my new policy of not engaging Puffergoose in debate, I will
  only say for the benefit of other readers of the room that the above
  statement is objectively and provably false and in fact runs contrary
  to the entire purpose, spirit, and meaning of our constitution.

(Puffergoose/161218) >Feb 10, 2012 08:50 from Knightshade

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:30:00 -0600

>Feb 10, 2012 08:50 from Knightshade
>Which religious belief states they can't put $50/mo on the employee flex
>spending card to cover "non-covered medication"?
>If the EMPLOYEE then chooses to use that to go to PP and get the pill, that's
>on the employee.

The employee could put $50 in a savings account and spend it no matter how ever
they want.  Flex spending cards are not exactly any kind of health service. 
They could take that and buy doughnuts.  If you say it has to be used for a
medical use, then the company should be able to regulate that and it still
reflects the norms and values of the company.

>Feb 10, 2012 08:59 from Knightshade
>Because Obamacare is dictating that certain things are provided via employer
>health coverage.
>But they have the OPTION of using it for the coverage that Obamacare says they
>have to have the choice of getting.

Ding ding ding, you used the magic word that is the big problem of so many of
the problems with Obama.  DICTATING!  Our dictator decrees that these people
have to do this or that and that is a big problem.

>Feb 10, 2012 10:06 from Steppenwolf
>You see, if I really believed that a fetus was equal to a human life, I'd say
>that government does NOT have the right to take that away, and I'd insist that
>government be so structured as to make that maximally difficult.

I do know it is equal to human life because it IS a human life and each of us
was that human life at a point in our development just as much as we each was a
new born and an infant at a point.

>But what I don't get, and what you really haven't shown, is how individuals
get
>more rights, and really more power over others, when they agree on something.
I
>don't think you can prove that philosophically.

Power in numbers and the more people you have, the more they should be able to
have a say in the basic norms and values of the group.  They ultimately have
power over themselves and have the ability to determine the shape of the
institutions of the group.  Rights are a nice idea but unless everyone believes
in them, they are only an idea if not a myth.  What we are really talking about
is culture and how people create and determine their culture and how they
create any kind of adherence to the culture through formal and informal
sanctions.  Plenty of cultures have sanctions that go against things that you
believe are rights because very simply, they do not believe in that right. 
That right does not exist in the context of their culture.  People can complain
that that is wrong and judge them within the context of our culture and our
values and you can be ethnocentric like that as much as you want Steppenwolf. 
The founders only believe in 3 unalienable rights.  Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness and Democrats work hard to infringe and violate all three
with the use of government.  Anything else is negotiable and changeable.  I
would agree that we shouldnt repeal the Bill of Rights, but we could.

>Feb 10, 2012 10:16 from Knightshade
>You know, a golf club is just a collection of people too.
>I still expect them to pay taxes on net income from membership dues though.

I completely agree.  I also expect that they can decide who can or cannot join
the group or the basic values expected of people within the group or what could
get you thrown out of the group.

(Salamano/161217) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:04:00 -0600


Step>>

You mean *your* default answer is "no."

(Steppenwolf/161216) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:08:00 -0600

Sal:

So then the default answer is no. And you need to set up a separate
organization to do charitable works.

(Salamano/161215) Step>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:52:00 -0600


Step>>

I don't want the government to be the decisor of whether or not the prayers
recited in my congregation do or do not have a sufficient association with
charitable behavior so as to warrant the extension of the exemption to that
sphere of activity.

(Steppenwolf/161214) Rewriting because I used the wrong word:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:02:00 -0600

Rewriting because I used the wrong word:

I think someone would have to make a very good argument that we shouldn't treat
all nonprofits equally, with a tax-exemption only for those that we'd readily
recognize as providing a charitable purpose.

I wouldn't expect a group of atheists who wanted to get together and talk about
atheism to be tax-exempt.

(Steppenwolf/161213) Sal:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:28:00 -0600

Sal:

So what about my atheism example? Or, if you prefer, "humanism," i.e. the
attempt to derive a moral order from secular grounds.

Should a humanist society be treated as a religion?

More generally, should the government be giving special advantages to religion
because the majority thinks they're a good thing? That strikes me a lot more as
establishment of religion and a lot less of excessive entanglement.

(Salamano/161212) I think the tax-exempt status accorded to religious institutions...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:22:00 -0600


I think the tax-exempt status accorded to religious institutions is reflective
of the longstanding and widespread belief that religion provides a variety of
salutory social benefits (...benefits that are deemed more substantial that
golf).  I believe such a view continues to be held by a considerable majority
of the citizenry.

(Pluck Duck/161210) Feb 7, 2012 12:29 from Okracoke

Pluck Duck@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:10:00 -0600

Feb 7, 2012 12:29 from Okracoke
the only opinion that matter's is God's will. God has given us marriage as a
sacrement between one man and one woman.
[Inside Politics> msg #161064 (143 remaining)] Read cmd -> Next

As evidenced by Abraham and Solomon.


Oh...wait...

(Steppenwolf/161209) Well, yes, I've always found that article hilarious.

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:00:00 -0600

Well, yes, I've always found that article hilarious.

But I'd put him to it more directly. The Founders did not believe that rights
could be taken away, but rather that they were inalienable. You believe they
can be taken away because enough people think so. How do you resolve the
discrepancy, Puff?

(Knightshade/161208) Step,

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:59:00 -0600

Step,

I've explained that a number of times... Puff is the guy in this story-


http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagin
es-c,2849/

(Steppenwolf/161207) The insurance discussion is way more interesting than this, but ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:53:00 -0600

The insurance discussion is way more interesting than this, but I'll say it
anyway: I realized Puff isn't talking about rights at all.

Say I assert I have the right to life. This right exists if there's no one, or
only one other person around, according to Puff. But if enough people agree I
shouldn't have it, it's gone.

That means this isn't a right at all. That's completely contrary to what a
"right" is. Therefore, in Puff's view, there aren't rights, merely granted
freedoms that can be taken away at a whim.

At least, as far as natural rights go.

Of course, the Founders believed in natural rights, so it's sort of an open
question, as Lochner and others have pointed out, why he thinks he's talking
about anywhere near the same sort of thing that they are.

(Tomte/161206) One might just as easily argue that giving churches preferential...

Tomte@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:55:00 -0600

One might just as easily argue that giving churches preferential tax treatment
runs afoul  of establishment clause....

(Kena/161205) You left out the ol' heated doghouse bit.

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:43:00 -0600

You left out the ol' heated doghouse bit.

(DrMemory/161204) If you say you're a church, you get 501(c)(3) tax exemption imme...

DrMemory@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:36:00 -0600

If you say you're a church, you get 501(c)(3) tax exemption immediately.  If
you're a non-religious NPO, there's a lot of paperwork and about a year of
applications to get that.

Churches are not required to file a 990 each year (although 'religious
organizations' are.)

(Knightshade/161203) Feb 10, 2012 10:29 from Egregious

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:37:00 -0600




Feb 10, 2012 10:29 from Egregious

The compromise has been all over NPR this morning.  It seems very well
run.  The church is just buying a generic insurance package, so it
gets to keep, in its eyes, clean hands.

How is the tax-exemption for religious organizations different from the
tax-exemption for a generic charity?





 Charitys only get that exemption if they are non-profit.  Churches are free to
pocket as much as they want, buy more artwork for the pope, etc...

(Egregious/161202) The compromise has been all over NPR this morning. It seems ver...

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:29:00 -0600


The compromise has been all over NPR this morning.  It seems very well
run.  The church is just buying a generic insurance package, so it
gets to keep, in its eyes, clean hands.

How is the tax-exemption for religious organizations different from the
tax-exemption for a generic charity?

(MIKEY/161201) "It's mentioned exactly as often as one between church and state...

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:26:00 -0600

"It's mentioned exactly as often as one between church and state."

Now I actually agree with this, however that has not stopped lots of judicial
activity under the banner of "seperation of church and state."

(DrMemory/161200) My understanding is that we don't tax religions because they do ...

DrMemory@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:17:00 -0600

My understanding is that we don't tax religions because they do good works, but
because they are religions, and taxes could be used by the government to exert
influence on them.

This seems to me to be not so much a case of government interfering in
religion, but a religion interfering in public health.  If Catholic women don't
wish to use contraceptives (and in the US, they do), I respect their religious
choice.  If an employer doesn't want to offer coverage to those women that want
it, I say 'tough beans.'

I hadn't heard the compromise that Steve posted about, but it seems workable
enough to me.

(Knightshade/161199) Feb 10, 2012 10:19 from MIKEY

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:22:00 -0600



Feb 10, 2012 10:19 from MIKEY
I must have missed the highly talked about "seperation of golf and state"
section in the Constitution.
[Inside Politics> msg #161198 (0 remaining)] Read cmd ->



It's mentioned exactly as often as one between church and state.


The only religious thing in there is about making no law establishing or
prefering one religion over another.


How you get from that to "it's illegal to ask them to pay taxes like EVERY
OTHER place does" would be a fascinating explaination.  Please provide it.

(MIKEY/161198) I must have missed the highly talked about "seperation of golf a...

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:19:00 -0600

I must have missed the highly talked about "seperation of golf and state"
section in the Constitution.

(Knightshade/161197) You know, a golf club is just a collection of people too.

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:16:00 -0600

You know, a golf club is just a collection of people too.

I still expect them to pay taxes on net income from membership dues though.

(Steppenwolf/161196) Puff:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:06:00 -0600

Puff:

You see, if I really believed that a fetus was equal to a human life, I'd say
that government does NOT have the right to take that away, and I'd insist that
government be so structured as to make that maximally difficult.

But what I don't get, and what you really haven't shown, is how individuals get
more rights, and really more power over others, when they agree on something. I
don't think you can prove that philosophically.

(Salamano/161195) I wonder how many of you who favor the elimination of tax-exempt...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:29:00 -0600


I wonder how many of you who favor the elimination of tax-exempt status for
churches bristle at the notion of regressive taxation?  Because that,
essentially, is what you are promoting.  Unless you don't think that the poor
contribute a significantly higher proportion of their income to their churches
than do the wealthy.

It seems to me that there may be a tendency on the part of some to reify
churches - to regard them as something other than collectivities of people.
But it is upon those people that the burden of additional taxation will fall,
as long as they opt to remain affiliated with their churches.  Who will such a
tax end up hurting the most?  Some of you would surely be asking this question
if religion didn't enter into the equation.

(MIKEY/161194) Do I get a "free" lunch with that?

MIKEY@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:29:00 -0600

Do I get a "free" lunch with that?

(Steve Austin/161193) Apparently, Obama is going to announce a compromise.

Steve Austin@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:14:00 -0600

Apparently, Obama is going to announce a compromise.

Employees will still receive the free birth control/contraceptive coverage if
they work (for example) at a Catholic-run hospital.

The compromise?  The insurance companies themselves will be paying for the
coverage (it's cheaper for them to provide that than to pay for unwanted
pregnancies, etc.) instead of the employer.

(Knightshade/161192) Feb 10, 2012 09:02 from Miser

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:05:00 -0600


Feb 10, 2012 09:02 from Miser
So we go forward with this plan and the church reduces the employee's pay by
$50/month and hands them a $50 gift card every month that they "can spend on
whatever they want."  What have we accomplished?





We have satisfied the requirement of the law without violating the churches
values.


Not sure why you're having a problem understanding this.

(Miser/161191) So we go forward with this plan and the church reduces the emplo...

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:02:00 -0600

So we go forward with this plan and the church reduces the employee's pay by
$50/month and hands them a $50 gift card every month that they "can spend on
whatever they want."  What have we accomplished?

Unless we're implying that the church shouldn't have the right to reduce the
employee's salary in order to comply with this provision, which is a whole
other can of worms.

(Knightshade/161190) Because Obamacare is dictating that certain things are provided ...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:59:00 -0600

Because Obamacare is dictating that certain things are provided via employer
health coverage.


Now, you can surely debate if THAT is a good idea or not, and make a great case
it's not a good idea.  But it's the law that passed.


The FSA method allows this item to be covered without the church actually,
explicitly, paying for things it doesn't believe in.

Heck, it COULD go toward fertility treatment if the employee decided to!

But they have the OPTION of using it for the coverage that Obamacare says they
have to have the choice of getting.

(Miser/161189) Knightshade>

Miser@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:53:00 -0600

Knightshade>
Just curious--why would you think it's fair or reasonable for the government to
dictate that a religious organization provide their employees with a flex
spending card (or add'l funds on an existing one)?

Even if you take out any religious context here, wouldn't most businesses
consider this an added cost of hiring and adjust salaries/benefits accordingly?
 Given that, why can't the employee simply decide to spend $50 of their own
income on the birth control rather than the church providing a separate
spending mechanism that we "all know what it's really for"  *wink wink*

It's like people can't make choices unless we provide them with some kind of
additional benefit..?

(Tomte/161188) Salmano, I agree that Catholic Charities does a lot of good. Wh...

Tomte@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:38:00 -0600

Salmano, I agree that Catholic Charities does a lot of good.  Where I disagree
is the idea of using the tax code to create incentives.  That's what make the
tax code so complicated, and raises the overall rate to pay for all the
loopholes.

There are already problems with entanglement in the existing tax code as it
relates to the tax exempt status of churches.  For instance churches are not
supposed to advocate for specific candidates or they are at risk of losing
their tax exempt status.

If churches were no longer tax exempt, then they would have MORE freedom of
speech to advocate.

churches already keep track of contributions, and make distinctions regarding
tax deductible versus not.  Last year my wife went to a women's retreat our
church held.  When I got our 2011 contribution statement, all of our tithes
were listed as deductible contributions, but the fee she paid to go to the
retreat was listed as non-deductible.

Still, in my perfect world (will never happen) I'd prefer just a few low but
progressive tax brackets with no deductions whatsoever, no tax exempt anything.
With all individuals and organizations paying in a consistent manner, I don't
think there would be as much entanglement, and it would be a lot more fair and
transparent.

Relgious people don't do good because of tax breaks.  They are doing it because
they believe "God" requires it of them.  They'll keep on doing it even though
they aren't tax exempt, and to the extent that they no longer have to worry
about keeping tax exempt status it may actually free them up to do their
mission less encumbered by the govt.

(Knightshade/161187) Feb 10, 2012 08:20 from Puffergoose

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:50:00 -0600





Feb 10, 2012 08:20 from Puffergoose
Knightshade>  Should the organized religion have to compromise on their beliefs
and have to do something that violates their beliefs?







Which religious belief states they can't put $50/mo on the employee flex
spending card to cover "non-covered medication"?


If the EMPLOYEE then chooses to use that to go to PP and get the pill, that's
on the employee.

(Puffergoose/161186) Knightshade> Should the organized religion have to compromise o...

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:20:00 -0600

Knightshade>  Should the organized religion have to compromise on their beliefs
and have to do something that violates their beliefs?  Individuals can chose to
be part of those organizations or not... I really do not care.
Steppenwolf>  I would say as the numbers of a community increases, the ability
and right increases.  How many did we need to decide that killing kids in
abortion clinics was ok.  I believe in that case it took 7 of 9 people to
decide that killing an innocent child was not murder so that would be the magic
number it seems.  You get 7 friends in a community of 9 and you can kill me.
How about that.
Of course I'm not generally talking about small groups of people such as this
but more of communities ranging from hundreds to millions of people that can
decide upon itself what kinds of norms and values the community has.
We as a nation votes at various levels of groups from city elections, county
elections, state elections and then federal level and gets to have a say in
what the government is going to look like and what values it should reflect and
what philosophy it should govern under.

(Steppenwolf/161185) So what's the magic number, Puff?

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:12:00 -0600

So what's the magic number, Puff?

I mean, if it's just you and me, I don't have the right to take your freedom
away. If I have a friend, you say we don't. So how many friends do I need to
accumulate before the right to kill you magically appears from thin air?

(Knightshade/161184) Allowed individuals to make their own choices would compromise t...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:13:00 -0600

Allowed individuals to make their own choices would compromise the beliefs of
organized religion?



Ok, I guess that's hard to argue with :)

(Puffergoose/161183) >"He

Puffergoose@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:11:00 -0600

>"He
>has also said that Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic
>countries due to their need."
>Got a cite?

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mahmoud_ahmadinejad/

>No, it isn't. Why should two people have a right to take away a third person's
>freedom? Why should groups have additional rights that individuals do not? It
>doesn't necessarily follow.

I am not talking about 3 people.  I am talking a few thousand to a few million
people and yes, they should have the right to determine the norms and values of
the overall society that they are creating.  It is not exactly a foreign
concept of there being different local or regional community standards.  That
may differ from other communities standards.

>Feb 9, 2012 14:40 from Feoh
>I know it's old news, but I do wonder what the heck the supreme court was
>thinking with the Citizens United decision.  I mean, just what we need,
>billions of dollars flowing around further muddying the electoral process.

They were thinking correctly that the campaign finance laws were a violation of
the first amendment and a restriction on freedom that should not be there.

>So maybe there is some kind of "win Win" where the Catholic schools and
>hospitals could be exempt on grounds of religious conscience, but they would
be
>required to make it up in some other type of fashion.  Maybe, to build on
>something DesCartes said a few days ago, they need to pay their employees the
>difference so that if they employees so choose they can obtain these services
>on their own.

So we should make them compromise on their beliefs still?  Having the freedom
to have your own religious convictions and not having to compromise on them is
what the whole freedom of religion is about.

(Knightshade/161182) I figured the biggest objection was that churches would end up w...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:03:00 -0600

I figured the biggest objection was that churches would end up with less money.


If you currently give 5k in donations to the church, the church gets 5k.

If that was taxable they now only get, say, 3.5k.


Most folks aren't going to suddenly up their donations enough so that the
church ends up with 5k net again.


(you can certainly say "too bad" to that objection.... but the church would
likely suggest that $1500 difference does more "good" in their hands than the
governments)

(Lochner/161181 Forum Moderator) Yeah, I'm trying to avoid derailing a discussion with heavy-hand...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:58:00 -0600


Yeah, I'm trying to avoid derailing a discussion with heavy-handed FM'ing, but
do please try to tie the discussion in more closely with Inside Politics>
stuff.  Obviously we can rove around a bit to explore subpoints but it's
beginning to dominate the discussion.

(Marigolds/161180) I am not sure Catholic Charities are the best example to use her...

Marigolds@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:49:00 -0600

I am not sure Catholic Charities are the best example to use here.
They are direct arms of the archdiocese in which they are based, and as such,
just like parochial schools and archdiocese high schools, they are exempt from
the mandate.
Catholic Charities USA and Caritas are not directly a part of the Catholic
Church and would be subject to the mandate, but also are not the organizations
that actual execute the charity work. Instead they are the training and
advocacy arm of Catholic Charities. The Charities themselves are all
archidiocesan or diocesan and, as such, exempt.

(DesCartes/161179) (I think this discussion of tax-exemption for religious institut...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:46:00 -0600

(I think this discussion of tax-exemption for religious institutions is getting
off-topic. Where should we move it? Serious>?)

(Gwynn/161178) I'm not trying to be glib, but that's the answer to your questio...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:14:00 -0600

I'm not trying to be glib, but that's the answer to your question. And I'd
think, though I may be wrong, that the clergy would fall under the church, not
charity. That doesn't seem too difficult, unless there's a legal issue with
that reasoning. Anybody can exhort anybody else to do charity, and that would
just fall under the duties of a clergy person doing their job, that's what
they're supposed to do, according to their religion.

But as far as your membership money and taxes, you can get rid of the majority
of the problems by splitting that membership up, either individually, as I've
said, or internally for your "church", e.g. "we charge $3000 membership, $1500
gets designated as church upkeep, $1500 gets designated as charity". They have
to be doing that now anyway, I mean, they have $X from memberships, they need
to decide how to allocate that amount of money anyway. Now they just have to
document it, and some of that would get taxed, and some of it wouldn't.

So whether they make you do it, "I'm contributing $X to church and $Y to
charity", or they document however they're doing it now, either way, you get
rid of most of the issue. They get taxed on whatever doesn't go to charity,
however that's determined. I'm not saying there won't be boundary cases, I'm
just saying, that at least hits the majority of it, and it's really not that
difficult a solution to come up with.

(Salamano/161177) It's easy to be glib when you ignore the tough calls...like who ...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:06:00 -0600


It's easy to be glib when you ignore the tough calls...like who decides whether
funding the clergy that exhorts the congregation to engage in charitable ought
to be exempt or not...without inviting excessive entanglement?

(Gwynn/161176) OK, so the church/whatever restructures its finances, you don't ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:01:00 -0600

OK, so the church/whatever restructures its finances, you don't get to just pay
membership or whatever, you split it up and go, "I want to give so much to the
bucket that directly supports getting a new roof, Etc>, and so much to the
bucket that feeds the homeless". Wow, that sure was tough.

(Danix/161175) Ah, I get Salamano's point. The money in a secular charity comes...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:32:00 -0600

Ah, I get Salamano's point. The money in a secular charity comes from direct
donations. The money in a Church-run organization might come from direct
donations, but it usually comes from Church money, to which donations are
made...

---

By the way, on another BBS, this very topic on contraception brought the
following comment:

"Jueves, 9 de Febrero 2012 18:19:54, de ------

:O En la Iglesia esta PROHIBIDO los anticonceptivos, el aborto etc.
Dicha leye, en HOSPITALES CATOLICOS...se debe ACATAR
Quien quiere imponer a quien? conoce a "catolicos" que aborten? la Iglesia LE
IMPUSO lo contrario?
"

Translated:
:O In the Church contraceptives, abortion, etc are FORBIDDEN.
Said law, in CATHOLIC HOSPITALS... must be FOLLOWED
Who wants to impose who? do you know "catholics" who abort? [did] the Church
IMPOSE otherwise?

---

Looks like it isn't just the clergy that's backward-thinking...

(Danix/161174) The same as it is made for other orgs. Church-run charities get ...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:30:00 -0600

The same as it is made for other orgs. Church-run charities get the tax
exemption status. At least that's what I'm understanding here.

(Salamano/161173) I pay close to $3,000 a year in membership dues to my synagogue....

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:30:00 -0600


I pay close to $3,000 a year in membership dues to my synagogue.  If my
synagogue is taxed, guess who's going to end up paying...with money that has
already been subjected to taxation.

Thanks, guys!

(Salamano/161172) Yeah...but exactly how can that distinction be made without invi...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:16:00 -0600



Yeah...but exactly how can that distinction be made without inviting "excessive
entanglement," counselor?

(DesCartes/161171) It's not like for-profit companies don't also do charitable dona...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:22:00 -0600

It's not like for-profit companies don't also do charitable donations. They
write it off on their taxes. If churches get a tax bill, they can do the same.

(Steppenwolf/161170) So you require of churches that donations made for the purposes ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:13:00 -0600

So you require of churches that donations made for the purposes of furthering
charitable purposes be segregated from those made for the purposes of
furthering the institution itself, and make only the former tax-deductible.

I refuse to believe that a good-enough distinction can't be made there.

(Salamano/161169) While I can't speak for anyone else's religion, or house of wors...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:54:00 -0600


While I can't speak for anyone else's religion, or house of worship, the
congregation to which I belong is constantly engaged in all manner of
charitable programs and activities, including providing shelter for the
homeless, feeding people, helping people receive no-cost medical care,
providing school supplies for the children of needy families, helping people to
obtain free legal services, etc.  I can only imagine that there are a great
many other churches and synagogues that provide similar acts of charity, and
it's difficult for me to conceive of a bona fide "House of God" in which the
notion of being "purely religious" excludes participation in and promotion of
such charitable acts.

(DesCartes/161168) I sympathize with Tomte's statement about there not being tax ex...

DesCartes@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:36:00 -0600

I sympathize with Tomte's statement about there not being tax exempt status for
religious organizations. However, if that were the case, an organization like
Catholic Charities, I'd say, would still qualify for tax exempt status in the
same way that a non-religious charity might. But institutions that serve only a
religious purpose (houses of worship, for example) or whose secular
counterparts aren't tax-exempt (daycares, gyms, and other things that some
large churches have started  operating) might not.

Also, there are some religious organizations who are uncomfortable with being
tax exempt. Some Catholic Worker houses, for example, refuse to file as a
non-profit.

(I remember this coming up in Congress some time r ecently--maybe this summer?
-- and having the LDS prophet address Congress and say that if its tax-exempt
status were revoked, it would affect contributions to the church. I was
thinking that that might be the case, to some extent, but that it can't be the
case that people only donate to churches for the tax write-off. People
volunteer, for example, even though it can't be written off. At least, that
seemed to be the answer I got when I asked about it a few months ago.)

(Salamano/161167) Tomte>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:57:00 -0600


Tomte>>

Obviously, my thinking about the issue we've been discussing is very much
different than yours.

As I see it, Catholic Charities likely spends hundreds of millions of dollars
clothing people, feeding people, and caring for people in ways that relieve
taxpayers of the burden.  In consideration of those human services and savings,
the government extends a tax exemption and incentivizes donations to Catholic
Charities through the provision of deductability.  I see Catholic Charities
promoting the public good and, therefore, meriting such considerations.

Why, in your view, am I wrong to think as I do?

(Okracoke/161166) The McCain Feingold Act from 2002 was a typical example of the W...

Okracoke@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:49:00 -0600

The McCain Feingold Act from 2002 was a typical example of the Washington
sausage factory. The idea was noble...to get soft money out of campaigns and to
squelch issue advocacy ads. The final result was a hodge podge that was so
blatantly unconstitutional that Senate Majority Whip led the opposition and was
part of a group that filed suit against it. President G. W. Bush signed the
bill despite "reservations about its constitutionality". In due course, the
Supreme Court did its job and declared most of McCain Feingold unconstitutional
in 2009. Many people think that the Washington lobby establishment deliberately
inserted sabotage provisions into McCain Feingold that would blow up under
court review. So there we go.. once again Americans got the government they
deserve. Americans want entitlements without paying for them, they want honest
and incorruptible elected officials while at the same time forcing these
officials to prostitute themselves every day to raise enough money to campaign
for the next election, and then the American public expresses its
dissatisfaction with the results by giving Congress 9% approval.

The No Child Left Behind Act, in the news today, was another example. It was a
law with great intentions but the schools found they could not live up to the
provisions. Therefore, President Obama magnamously gave 10 states exemptions
from complying with NCLB. 28 other states and the DC have also applied for
waivers to NCLB and the President will surely grant them as he hands out
politcal favors during his re-election campaign. The same thing will happen to
any bill attempting to reform Social Security or Medicare. The initial good
intentions will fall to the grim reality of voter reaction when the cuts
actually come to be implemented.

(Tomte/161165) Just for the record, I am a religious person and I think tax exe...

Tomte@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:49:00 -0600

Just for the record, I am a religious person and I think tax exempt status for
religious organizations is bollucks.

It's not interfereing with religous liberty for religous institutations to have
to pay the same taxes everyone else has to pay.

(Steppenwolf/161164) That has nothing to do with your original point, Feoh: the quest...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:49:00 -0600

That has nothing to do with your original point, Feoh: the question of whether
there will be too much money in political discourse really doesn't come into
play when determining if political contributions are or are not protected
speech.

(Feoh/161163) Lochner> I think it's more complicated and muddy than that - I t...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:46:00 -0600

Lochner> I think it's more complicated and muddy than that - I think it's about
'political contributions as free speech' which IMO is rather a steaming
pantload :)

(Tomte/161162) I was doing a little bit of reading in Wikipedia about conscient...

Tomte@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:33:00 -0600

I was doing a little bit of reading in Wikipedia about conscientious objectors,
and one of the interesting things is that usually conscientious objectors to
wars get put in some sort of other alternative service.  They aren't just let
off the hook on their obligations to society.

So maybe there is some kind of "win Win" where the Catholic schools and
hospitals could be exempt on grounds of religious conscience, but they would be
required to make it up in some other type of fashion.  Maybe, to build on
something DesCartes said a few days ago, they need to pay their employees the
difference so that if they employees so choose they can obtain these services
on their own.

That would also prevent the organizations for having an undue compettitive
advantage i.e., profiting off the fact that they have a loophole that exemplts
them from what is required of everyone else.

(Lochner/161161) If they were doing their jobs properly, they were NOT thinking, ...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:42:00 -0600


If they were doing their jobs properly, they were NOT thinking, "We should
interpret the constitution in a particular way because we don't like the
consequences of free speech in this instance."  Hopefully, they were thinking,
"what does the constitution mean in the context of free speech where the
speaker is an entity rather than an individual?"

(Feoh/161160) I know it's old news, but I do wonder what the heck the supreme ...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:40:00 -0600

I know it's old news, but I do wonder what the heck the supreme court was
thinking with the Citizens United decision.  I mean, just what we need,
billions of dollars flowing around further muddying the electoral process.

(Salamano/161159) Tomte>>

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:14:00 -0600


Tomte>>

Yes, Quakers pay taxes that support operations to which they object, but they
are exempted (as conscientious objectors) from combat duty.

It's difficult to apply a direct parallel to the Catholic Church, or its
nonprofit organizational arms, as they are not subject to the payment of taxes.
Their adherents, however, certainly pay taxes that are used to support
uses to which they might object.  I'm NOT arguing that those tax dollars
ought not be used to fund government-dispensed birth control devices, only that
Catholic entities be exempted from any requirement to do so.  I see this as
being parallel to the permissiveness of conscientious objector status.

(Tomte/161158) Just to be clear, I am not actually pacifist or Quaker. In real...

Tomte@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:43:00 -0600

Just to be clear, I am not actually pacifist or Quaker.  In real life I support
the right of the govt to open up a can of whoop ass on other countries if it
should be necessary.

But for the sake of this argument, the parallel is that religious people pay
taxes for things that go against their religious scruples.  They don't have to
believe that its right, but that doesn't mean they don't have a responsibility
as members of the society to contribute in ways that have been agreed upon via
the law of the land in this republic.

It's the same in this instance.  They can pay for the contraception, but if
they have scruples they don't have to use it.