ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP
" Can you quote relevant paragraphs? Website requires a subscription to read full story. |
|
" You forgot to add: “in my opinion” to your statement about it not being counted. Most people don’t mind giving 10% - even if their church strongly recommends it. |
|
|
You're not following me; mormons (and some protestants) don't 'strongly recommend', they force you to tithe, or you're kicked out.
Forced charity is not actually charity, it is the same as forced govt charity. |
|
" I was able to view the article without a subscription?
Spoiler
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Nov. 30, 2017 7:07 p.m. ET 630 COMMENTS Democrats have a lot to say about the Republican tax-reform plan, including that it is a “middle class con job” and is going to cost the GOP its congressional majorities. That’s quite the bold claim, coming from the party that is in fact in uncharted tax-politics territory. Americans have short political memories, which means it is no longer possible to remember a world in which Democrats didn’t hate tax cuts. And in the mainstream media—which shares the left’s penchant for class warfare—it’s also no longer possible to read an analysis that doesn’t assume Democrats are on the right side of history, that these tax cuts are “unpopular,” and that this reform holds grave political risks for Republicans. Based on what? Democrats certainly have no modern evidence of these propositions, since they’ve never uniformly opposed tax cuts. In fact, it’s been 16 years since the party even engaged in a big tax brawl, during George W. Bush’s first year as president. What’s striking is just how many Democrats enthusiastically signed on to Mr. Bush’s tax bill, and just how far off the political rails the party has gone in the intervening years. While the Bush tax package was hardly as sweeping as today’s reform, it contained similar provisions. It cut marginal rates across the board, even knocking nearly 5 points off the top marginal rate for the 1%. It cut capital-gains taxes and lowered the estate tax to zero in 2010, before the reductions expired. These are all cuts that House and Senate Democrats today uniformly decry as giveaways to the rich and powerful. Yet back then, nobody doubted some Democrats would support the legislation. Republicans barely commanded a Senate majority, with just 50 Senate votes, yet the tax-cut train rolled unswervingly on. Ultimately, 12 Senate Democrats voted yes. Some of these were moderate Democrats, a species that is now all but extinct— John Breaux of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota. But the ayes also included Dianne Feinstein from California and Bob Torricelli from New Jersey. Also notable were the two Senate Democrats who voted “present” and the five who skipped the vote—presumably not wanting to upset their progressive base but equally fearing retribution from nonideological tax-cut-loving Americans. In the end, only 31 Democrats voted against the cuts. In the House, 28 Democrats supported the bill, from states that included New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Twenty-nine House Democrats didn’t vote. Some in the press are making the laughable argument that these “yes” votes were responsible for the 2002 Senate defeats of Georgia’s Max Cleland and Missouri’s Jean Carnahan. In reality, those races hinged on Mr. Cleland’s national-security views and Mrs. Carnahan’s inexperience. The more illustrative cases are Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Johnson, Democrats who used their tax-cut votes to hold their seats narrowly in what was otherwise a rocking year for Republicans. To the extent their votes were used against them, it was only by other Democrats who tried purging the party of moderates. Polls show that significant majorities of Americans love the idea of tax reform in general. These are more reliable indicators of public sentiment than the recent spate of media polls that show opposition to these specific Republican plans—and that reflect a lot of bogus analysis and scare tactics. What will matter to Republicans is the money Americans will ultimately find in their pockets, and the boost tax reform will give the economy and wages and jobs. Nor should they underestimate the delight many voters will experience from a vastly simplified tax process. In short, there is very little to suggest Democrats benefit politically from sitting out this tax debate—beyond their saying so. And they’ve certainly done themselves no favors from a policy perspective. Had they been willing to negotiate, they likely could have spared their high-tax states the new limits that are coming on state and local tax deductions. They might have limited cuts to, or bracket expansions of, the top personal rate—given that President Trump is himself squishy on that issue. They might have increased the tax penalty on companies that are repatriating money from overseas. They might have killed a provision that will finally allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—included to court the vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Instead, they’ve got bupkus. It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats are working so hard to recast the tax narrative in their favor. Republican fortunes aside, the question is whether a modern, progressive Democratic Party just committed an epic policy and political blunder—one they’ll have to live with for a decade. Write to kim@wsj.com. Appeared in the December 1, 2017, print edition as 'When Dems Backed Tax Cuts.' Still in the alpha stage, but at least build diversity isn't an issue: https://wolcengame.com/home/
| |
" All the people that i know that are Mormon or regularly tithe, do not consider the financial demand a burden and do not believe they are being 'forced' into donating. They give with joy and believe that their contributions go towards the betterment of their community. People who would object strongly enough to contributing 10% of their wages (to the point of feeling they are forced) would leave or never join in the first place. To the best of my knowledge there is no actual being 'forced' to contribute. There might be peer pressure or they might be strongly urged; but there is not threat to being expelled. Those who are not able to donate are usual recipients of the donations. Those who are not able to donate financially typically donate their time. I think we are losing the main thread of my initial statement: political conservatives generally donate more money to charity to political liberals. This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with how those political spectra believe that the needy should be cared for. The right believes that the care of those less fortunate should be handled privately. The left believe that everyone's money should be pooled and that the state should decide how to split it up. You believe that the reasons for this are due to religious pressures, which is simply a false claim which you can not support with reasoned arguments. A quick search online of the terms "religious private welfare charity" will help you understand this idea more fully. Edit: References Mormons are not forced to tithe on penalty of expulsion Protestants are not forced to tithe:
Spoiler
Last edited by MBata#2543 on Jan 15, 2018, 3:36:37 PM
|
|
"No one understands you but me. "It's a bit like saying I've been coerced against my will into giving Netflix $7.99 per month. Goddamn extortionists. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jan 15, 2018, 3:36:11 PM
|
|
" There is a distinction you’re missing. Both organizations state up front, this is what we expect from you; however, one organization you are free to negotiate with, while the other will steal your real and personal property under threat of injury or imprisonment if you do not comply. My understanding, living in an area with a large Mormon population, is that religious tithes are not strictly interpreted as monetary contributions, but rather time or money. Here’s the interesting bit, however, most Mormons (that I know) do both, above what is asked of them; they are all, every single one of them, beneficiaries of a stable and self sufficient lifestyle that grants them plenty of excess. The reason? Because the church is very efficient at helping its members get back on their feet when they are down, and the resulting stability in the family structure is very efficient at supporting their elderly once they’ve aged beyond their ability to contribute. " I came across this last night while looking back for a quote to use in conversation with a friend; I must’ve missed it the first time around. I believe this is due to two things: 1) proliferation of information, 2) loss of localized power. There are 24 hours in a day, no matter if you work in the federal, state, county, or municipal arenas; all of these people are doing as many things in those 24 hours. By comparison, very few channels spend very little time covering very little information about what your most local representatives did today. Simply put, it is much more difficult to find out what is going on, and much less relevant to conversation when you or others commute to work or travel to visit friends and family; their local issues are different than yours, but their national issues are the same. I also remember the time before the internet went public. When I was growing up, people seldom cared about the president or congress, and everybody in the neighborhood went to monthly townhall meeting. At the time, the most abundant information was what your neighbor was doing and saying, you had to go out of your way to find out what the president was doing or saying. Similarly, the municipality and its decisions were much more relevant to your daily life. Devolving Wilds Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” Last edited by CanHasPants#3515 on Jan 15, 2018, 3:58:35 PM
|
|
" Mandatory payment sound so inappropriate. Here is a modest proposal. How about the government strongly recommends you pay your taxes that include funding for Military, veteran's benefits, law enforcement and justice department, transportation, Social Security and unemployment benefits, health and medicare, social programs, interest payment for debt, subsidies for science and technology, subsidies for food and agriculture, environmental subsidies, subsidies for housing and education, or they kick out out of citizenship and America. It is not extortion if it is optional right? You are just losing unique privileges and protection from being an exclusive current members of a powerful community. I assume everyone want to be a member unless they want to get thrown into the ocean. |
|
|
You sound ridiculous. What point are you even making?
" They already do. Under threat of loss of real and personal property and/or imprisonment. " Sounds good so far. " Only for interstate transportation (incl. airports), otherwise that’s the states’ business. " Unsustainable, but currently necessary. " States’ business, not fed’s. " Shouldn’t be any debt. " These are not sustainable and do more harm than good; send ‘em back to the private sector. " Why would they? They already confiscate your real and personal property and/or imprison you. " How is this any more optional than confiscating your real and personal property and/or imprisoning you? " Oh, I get it now. You’re a statist, and you’re jealous that the Mormons are better at looking after their own than some stranger 600 miles away is at looking after you. Devolving Wilds Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” Last edited by CanHasPants#3515 on Jan 15, 2018, 8:17:04 PM
|
|
|
Subsidies are a necessity for agriculture. If there wasn't any, price of food would explode because farmers, at current prices, would run a deficit for the vast majority of them.
Science also need subsidies albeit not in every sectors. Medical science absolutely need it so that better treatments occur instead of settling with something that barely work but make lots of money. It's also needed for many other sector that would otherwise be unable to make back its money such as space exploration. The nice thing about science is that even when you fail your objective, you still gain knowledge. That knowledge is then built upon and shared because the goal is humanity progression rather than profit. Private sectors wouldn't invest money into something that has little chance of paying back and wouldn't share their methods to others. Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun |
|
