Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good argument (for a change) ... except, of course, it is not the government's purpose or role to encourage and support the free exercise of religion, any more than it is to restrict such. The nation was founded on principles of freedom from religious persecution ... not specifically to encourage religious observance.
Keeping the Democrat's hands off of church funds is in no way ENCOURAGING or ENDORSING religion.
I think you know that. Please don't twist this into something that it is not.
I see you have been taken by the new definition of the word, investment, that the Obama administration has started using. Investment used to be something that people did wanting to make more money but today we hear The One talking about investment as if the government were a business.
Has the official definition of investment changed because Obama started using it with government expansion?
One example:
Do you think the Interstate highway system created by Eisenhower has been a tool of development for the nation's economy? If so, how would you say that is not an "investment" in the nation's welfare and future?
If not, why?
There's no "new definition" of the word. It has always meant the same thing.
One example:
Do you think the Interstate highway system created by Eisenhower has been a tool of development for the nation's economy? If so, how would you say that is not an "investment" in the nation's welfare and future?
If not, why?
There's no "new definition" of the word. It has always meant the same thing.
Gas taxes are supposed to maintain our roads. Instead that revenue goes to other programs that Democrats love.
Highways should increasingly become owned by private interests. Pay a toll and the money actually goes to road maintenance and improvement.
That list takes in more than most progs usually provide in saying that we are already a socialistic nation but you are welcome to go on if you can think of a few more examples
All developed nations are socialistic in this sense ...
Question: where would you be without those things?
Personally, I prefer small hunter-gatherer tribal societies ... but hey, here we are ...
Medicare, Social Security ... sure, I can go on all day ...
but of course you are so wealthy and independent and powerful that you don't need to take advantage of all the government provides its citizens ... which, by the way, is the purpose of government: to serve and protect ...
Folk, you need to find away to tax them on the cosmic real estate they're all selling, you know like a sales tax. After all everyone gets a golden mansion with golden paved streets.......
One example:
Do you think the Interstate highway system created by Eisenhower has been a tool of development for the nation's economy? If so, how would you say that is not an "investment" in the nation's welfare and future?
Obama's idea of investment is education for people who can't afford it - majoring in things that they can't possibly make a living at.
I think taxing churches starts to cross the line between church and state. I cannot say I would support it. That said, I do think the church should spend more of its receipts on its constituents, rather than buildings and ornamentation. The wealth of the catholic church is especially onerous, given the poverty of many of its members. Still, that is between them and their church.
Actually, I never said I did ... I merely raised the issue here on the forum because I saw the item linked about this happening in Spain and found it interesting and thought provoking -- which it is turning out to be here as well.
Moreover, it's not "religion" that's being proposed for taxation consideration ... it is "churches" ... religion and church are not identical ...
Actually, I never said I did ... I merely raised the issue here on the forum because I saw the item linked about this happening in Spain and found it interesting and thought provoking -- which it is turning out to be here as well.
Moreover, it's not "religion" that's being proposed for taxation consideration ... it is "churches" ... religion and church are not identical ...
Quite right. Why do they build those big ostentatious buildings of worship anyway? Could it be for the same reasons that Las Vegas Casinos are built? Hmmmm.
Keeping the Democrat's hands off of church funds is in no way ENCOURAGING or ENDORSING religion.
I think you know that. Please don't twist this into something that it is not.
Of course I am not twisting anything ... this isn't about putting revenue into the hands of Democrats OR Republicans ... it's about collecting revenue for the United States of America, which includes everybody.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
