Ending God's Tax Exempt Status
Does anyone know of an organization trying to end this abomination?
I would very much like to get involved.
I've searched but not found one.
Also, be a good discussion.
I have no issue with charities that provide 75+% of their income to actually doing charitable works being tax exempt.
Churches are not charities, not by a long-shot.
They are clubs and clubs are not tax exempt.
I am also for taking exempt status from any charity that falls below a pre-set line (sure if they need to "get their house in order" for ONE year and send in a letter showing why and presenting their books IN ADVANCE I could see a one year ride) and removing their exempt status.
The last study I saw showed the average church use 3-5% of their income for charitable works, and THAT definition is VERY liberal.
This needs to end yesterday.
Church is a business and only a business, they need to pay for the infrastructure like everyone else.
Church is a business and only a business, they need to pay for the infrastructure like everyone else.
rkz - I agree completely. I feel exactly the same way about sports franchises.
A church can qualify as a charitable organization by providing a number of certain services, not just by giving a certain percentage of their income to other charitable organizations.
Also, a church has to be run as a non-profit to even be considered for tax-exempt status.
How many churches are actually run as for-profit, other than COTWP?
A church can qualify as a charitable organization by providing a number of certain services, not just by giving a certain percentage of their income to other charitable organizations.
Also, a church has to be run as a non-profit to even be considered for tax-exempt status.
Run as non-profit and existing for growth to spread a "message" (man that was hard to type) are contradictions.
I feel the ONLY organizations that should be tax exempt are charitable ones that meet a specific standard for a minimum amount used for administrative/infrastructure costs annually.
Yes, that includes private schools. Profit is profit, as for churches, growth is profit.
So every organization that spreads a set of ideas and seeks to enlarge its audience is therefore, by default, a for-profit enterprise? And what would your suggested minimum amount be? Are we talking a percentage or total funds delivered?
I think they should tax all people standing in water. oh!
I'm not a big fan of organized religion, but I don't necessarily agree that churches are a business. It doesn't make sense to me for churches to be set up as for-profit entities.
So every organization that spreads a set of ideas and seeks to enlarge its audience is therefore, by default, a for-profit enterprise? And what would your suggested minimum amount be? Are we talking a percentage or total funds delivered?
Are they taking in money for growth? If yes then they are a business.
The percentage is toward charity
alone for tax exempt status.
why does money for "growth" = business? All charities fundraise to expand their services. Also, many clubs are tax exempt, and all churches operate charities.
Services for others, not expanding infrastructure and administration.
Again, if a charity spends more of its funds than 20 or 25% for administrative costs instead of their charter they should lose their tax exemption until they repair the issue.
Still, constantly repeating myself in here.
but . . . (confused) . . . infrastructure and administration are necessary components of providing services, whether for-profit or not.
I mean, I get what you're saying here; it just sounds a little ingenuous to me.
i used to work at Denny's
sometimes, I would give one of the cooks a ride in... He lived in the project in Coatesville. (scary area) a couple times on my way there, I'd be behind a big black Cadillac with a Clergy sticker on the bumper. The area was a horseshoe of row homes that had junk in the yards, bigwheels in the street, shutters hanging down...et friggin cetera. The Cadillac parked in front of one of these units. No difference visible on the outside...I bet the inside was a far cry tho.
non profit my ass.
I have family that are "clergy", they are live FAR above the income level of their constituency.
Business/scam.
and I know a bunch of priests, who by no stretch of the imagination are living rich. They are all actively involved in numerous charities serving the poor of this town, of which there are many.
So what?
There are bad clergy and good clergy; bad church administrtors and good ones. Just like all people. I do not see how this relates to their tax status.
Do away with $8,022,000,000 in agricultural subsidies.
And with $23,000,000,000 in foreign aid.
Don't forget the $418,000,000,000 in Medicare/Medicaid.
Not to mention the billions and billions in lost taxes on forest, farm and open space land that don't pay the same rate as Joe Homeowner.
Now who else can we spew a little hate on?
Off Topic.
Also, I am not talking about government spending I am talking about more government money.
Hate?
No emotion here... at least not from me.
Cloud, it relates to their tax status because they are exempt for what reason?
Seriously?
Why are they exempt?
They are not charities. Studies show that churches use 95%, on average, of their funds for "administrative costs".
There is no reason for them to be tax exempt.
In most states they own more land and investments than any single industry.
They are a business, nothing more, and we should treat them as such.
I am not saying they should not exist, I am saying that unless they are a charity and use the predominance of their funds for charitable activities (preaching is not charity) they do not have any reason to be tax exempt.
I work with non-profit organizations all the time, as well as religious organizations, and I would like to point out that your definition of non-profit entities is too narrow. Non-profit entities legally comprise more types of organizations that just "charities." So, your premise that if an entity is not a "charity," it should not be tax-exempt doesn't wash.
What is being a prick about wanting to end the free ride religion gets in this nation?
Please be specific.
If they are non-profit just to self-exist they should not be tax exempt.
If they provide a service like an educational foundation, charity school or museum then standards must be met. Income to service percentage vs. administrative costs being the determining factor.
A church exists just to exist, though most invest quite a bit and exist to grow.
Again, having to repost something I have already written, sad.
nothing.
the prick thing was about you and bruce pissing at each other again.
oh, and editing a post from one line.....( 'Off Topic') to a whole three paragraph post is kind of lame.
So you want to do away with separation of church and state.
Nope.
Tax does not tell anyone what to do.
Pure income to tax ratio like ANY business.
Or, BETTER YET, they can DO the charity the actually CLAIM to do with the money you give them.
What is being a prick about wanting to end the free ride religion gets in this nation?
Please be specific.
[COLOR=Red] If they are non-profit just to self-exist they should not be tax exempt.
If they provide a service like an educational foundation, charity school or museum then standards must be met. Income to service percentage vs. administrative costs being the determining factor.
A church exists just to exist, though most invest quite a bit and exist to grow.
Again, having to repost something I have already written, sad.[/COLOR]
ok, that's 2 posts in a row that you have changed drastically after a reaction was posted.
you suck
you can go fuck yourself with your redundant condescending tone and stupid nonproductive whining. you're a malcontent. you have too much time on your hands and all you do is regurgitate shit you read somewhere else.
dead to me
Tax exempt non-profits in my zip code, look up yours
here
ADAM MCGUGIN MEMORIAL RESEARCH FUND
ALLENPOWER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
AMERICAN LEGION
AMERICAN LEGION POST 190 STEVENSON BAXTER
AMIKE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA INC
ARCHDIOCESAN SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA
BETA CHI ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF LAMBDA CHI ALPHA
BIG HOUSE PLAYS & SPECTACLES INC
BROOKHAVEN FIRE COMPANY
BROOKHAVEN FIRE COMPANY NO 1 RELIEF ASSOCIATION 04
CHESTER CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AKA THE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY
CHESTER CITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION
CHESTER UPLAND CITIZENS FOREDUCATIONAL PROGRESS INC
COLUMBUS QUINCENTENNIAL FOUNDATION INC
COMMUNITY GOSPEL CHAPEL
DELAWARE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF BOROUGHS
DELAWARE COUNTY FIELD AND STREAM ASSOC
DELAWARE COUNTY INTERFAITH HOSPITALITY NETWORK
DELAWARE VALLEY MENSA
FAMILY AND LIFE ACHIEVEMENT CENTER
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS OF PENNSYLVANIA
FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS OF PENNSYLVANIA
FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRIENDS OF CALEB PUSEY HOUSE
GARAGE INC
JOSEPH J BARRETT SR MEMORIAL ALL-STAR GAME AND SCHOLARSHIP FUND
KOINONIA FELLOWSHIP OF CHURCHES
LIFEWERKS INC
MENS INTERNATIONAL PEACE EXCHANGE
ORDER OF AHEPA
PANHELLENIC ASSOCIATION OF WIDENER UNIVERSITY
PARKSIDE SENIOR CENTER
PENN-DEL ARCHERS
PI LAMBDA PHI FRATERNITY
RESURRECTION LIFE CHURCH
ROYAL ARCH MASONS OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHORTWOOD WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION
STUDENTS IN LEADERSHIP PROGRAM INC
TALL CEDARS OF LEBANON OF NORTH AMERICA
THETA CHI FRATERNITY INC
TOASTMASTERS INTERNATIONAL
TREE OF LIFE MINISTRIES
UKRAINIAN NATIONAL WOMENS LEAGUE OF AMERICA BROOKHAVEN BRANCH 2
UPLAND BAPTIST CHURCH
UPLAND FIRE CO NO 1
You calling me a malcontent, condescending and a prick. PRICELESS!
I am so happy right now!
Bruce, thank you for making my point so vividly!
Off Topic.
Also, I am not talking about government spending I am talking about more government money.
Hate?
No emotion here... at least not from me.
It's tw's brother!
so, you've got churches, clubs, fraternal organizations, community organizations, scholarship funds, welcome wagons, international organizations and --surprise--charities! As I said, too narrow a definition.
harsh, Jim!
fuck him. he just made my ignore list. coffin dodger.
Woohoo!!!!
The welcome wagon nor a frat should be exempt if they pull in enough to pay taxes.
Scholarship funds, they provide far more service than they will ever need admin to break that threshold... no problem.
I don't see the issue.
fuck him. he just made my ignore list. coffin dodger.
Dude...mellow man. Go make another captain and coke.
Among the non-profits in my Zip...La Leche League...hooray for boobies!
(ducks to avoid flying bodily fluids)
As I said, too narrow a definition.
Exactly, their message is immaterial.
the messages may be immaterial, but the purposes are not--at least according to the tax code.
Their purpose is their message.
I personally see no reason whatsoever that a church should not have to pay taxes. I see no reason why they should pay more in taxes than any other organization that draws in the same amount of money... but I see no reason why they shouldn't have to pay.
Their purpose is their message.
Which is why they buy all the land and invest so much?
Yeah... sell me another one.
At one time, recently, the Mormon Church was (if ranked) the third largest business in the US.
I think it depends a lot on which branch of the Church you're dealing with.
If you are talking about the Evangelical strands of Christianity, much of their development included concepts similar to the Methodist faiths: that to work hard is Godly, that to acquire a better standing in the community and business world was a sign that you had worked hard and were therefore Godly. Now, that may well not be what's going on in the Evangelical sects now...but from such a base it's easy to see how gaining wealth and 'doing well' was not and is not seen as contradicting their faith.
In the Catholic confession, however, whilst it was always acceptable that The Church gain status and wealth, in individual terms they had more apostolic assumptions of their clergy.
rk, I am as hostile to religion as the next dwellar (especially if the next dwellar is you :P) but we need to be careful not to make assumptions of the whole, when it's a much more fragmented picture than that.
Across the world, your own country included, much of the charity and outreach work that helps some of the world's most vulnerable people, is conducted by well meaning Christians, with their Church as the organisation funding, managing and providing that exercise. Those are genuine charities. There are no doubt churches which are run like businesses and preachers who have made themselves wealthy. They are not charities. But by the same token, there are secular charities which are scams and yet get tax breaks.
I do think churches should have to prove their charitable status like any other organisation. (though you wouldn't be able to impose that on the Catholic Church without causing a massive worldwide argument).
Churches sell redemption, forgiveness of sins, the path to Heaven. They should be taxed.
I would have more compassion for churches were it not for how those who attend weekly service, but don't "donate" are treated.
So you want to do away with separation of church and state.
If churches were taxed this would be the natural outcome?
I personally see no reason whatsoever that a church should not have to pay taxes. I see no reason why they should pay more in taxes than any other organization that draws in the same amount of money... but I see no reason why they shouldn't have to pay.
I can't see it either Ibram. Except for homeless shelters and Salvation Armys here I see no community benefit. I figure 30% of my income to the government is enough of a
give that even before I left the church I stopped tithing my babys milk money away.
Churches sell redemption, forgiveness of sins, the path to Heaven. They should be taxed.
I would have more compassion for churches were it not for how those who attend weekly service, but don't "donate" are treated.
You are so full of shit, Spexx. First off, the
Catholic church
used to sell indulgences. They do not anymore, and the Protestant church never did. So your assertion that churches "sell" redemption is a stupid metaphor at best. Secondly, no church I have ever been in treated those who did not tithe any differently than those who did. The whole thing is very anonymous in fact--and even moreso nowadays, when any church of moderate size allows giving to be done online if the churchgoer prefers.
Rkz, I'd like to know if you see any differences between a non-profit community theatre troupe and a non-profit church. Should the non-profit theatre troupe be taxed as well?
I believe there are several churches whose expenditures may be questionable - most of those are larger churches, as in 500 & up in congregation. However, smaller churches, most of the pastors have a secular job to help support their families, because "the giving" pays just the basic bills. As stated earlier, you can't possibly group "all" churches or even other non-profit organizations into one lump sum - they are not all the same and as such are not "run" the same.
Secondly, no church I have ever been in treated those who did not tithe any differently than those who did. The whole thing is very anonymous in fact--and even moreso nowadays, when any church of moderate size allows giving to be done online if the churchgoer prefers.
I can't speak to how non-tithers are treated, but online donations are much less anonymous than collection boxes, or even baskets.
Rkz, I'd like to know if you see any differences between a non-profit community theatre troupe and a non-profit church. Should the non-profit theatre troupe be taxed as well?
If a church would qualify as non-profit under the same rules as a theatre troupe, then there's no need for the religious component for non-profit status.
Except for homeless shelters and Salvation Armys here I see no community benefit.
hmm. Perhaps a more rounded education might help? Churches are active in youth organizations, disaster relief, immigration assistance, senior care, education, victim assistance, family counseling . .. the list goes on.
I'm not saying there aren't abuses of the system by churches. I'm troubled by the attitude that seems to be prevalent here that "religion is bad; churches should be abolished." I don't like organized religion myself, but that's because my spirituality is private--between the gods and myself. But I mean, come on-- to say they serve no purpose or provide the community no benefit is inaccurate.
You are so full of shit, Spexx. First off, the Catholic church used to sell indulgences. They do not anymore, and the Protestant church never did. So your assertion that churches "sell" redemption is a stupid metaphor at best. Secondly, no church I have ever been in treated those who did not tithe any differently than those who did. The whole thing is very anonymous in fact--and even moreso nowadays, when any church of moderate size allows giving to be done online if the churchgoer prefers.
Rkz, I'd like to know if you see any differences between a non-profit community theatre troupe and a non-profit church. Should the non-profit theatre troupe be taxed as well?
If it turns out they are making a profit, FUCK YES!. As an actor I have seen this happen and people getting rich off of actors who do not get paid... it is disgusting.
rk, I am as hostile to religion as the next dwellar
I have said before, I am not hosile toward religion as long as it does not break the three: Do not break the threshold of church and state IN ANY WAY (that includes lobbying your mythology to any laws)
Do not abuse children with ideas about eternal torture, child abuse of any kind should be prosecuted by law at all times.
Do not go door-to-door or phone unsolicited, this should be illegal for anyone, not just religion.
The tax thing, honestly I poorly worded the title of this thread
now that I see that churches are only about half of those that need their tax exempt status removed.
Being "active in" and qualifying as an Actual Charity are two things that do not meet anywhere in the middle.
I have been active in charity my whole life.
I have also BEEN a charity, for three months out of the year for three years in a row... trust me... they are NOT the same thing, not by a LONG SHOT.
I believe there are several churches whose expenditures may be questionable - most of those are larger churches, as in 500 & up in congregation. However, smaller churches, most of the pastors have a secular job to help support their families, because "the giving" pays just the basic bills. As stated earlier, you can't possibly group "all" churches or even other non-profit organizations into one lump sum - they are not all the same and as such are not "run" the same.
And their taxes would reflect that.
You are so full of shit, Spexx. First off, the Catholic church used to sell indulgences. They do not anymore, and the Protestant church never did. So your assertion that churches "sell" redemption is a stupid metaphor at best. Secondly, no church I have ever been in treated those who did not tithe any differently than those who did. The whole thing is very anonymous in fact--and even moreso nowadays, when any church of moderate size allows giving to be done online if the churchgoer prefers...
Why the attack?
Then what does a church do? On Sunday morning, you goes in, you pays your money, you're forgiven and on track to heaven. I wasn't talking about indulgences, I was talking about fee for service. You pay your donation, and in return, you get......what?
Our church gave us a statement of our donations at the end of every year, so it was by no means anonymous, and they printed the previous week's total take in the current week's program.
hmm. Perhaps a more rounded education might help? Churches are active in youth organizations, disaster relief, immigration assistance, senior care, education, victim assistance, family counseling . .. the list goes on.
I'm not saying there aren't abuses of the system by churches. I'm troubled by the attitude that seems to be prevalent here that "religion is bad; churches should be abolished." I don't like organized religion myself, but that's because my spirituality is private--between the gods and myself. But I mean, come on-- to say they serve no purpose or provide the community no benefit is inaccurate.
I don't understand your first statement about a rounded education.
You should be aware though that the Salvation Armys and homeless shelters are Christain organizations. I've done plenty of missions in my youth where we helped out in shelters.
Exactly, even though the Salvation army and some of the foreign aid organizations have had their problems, most of them, now, have very good books and would have any issue with this.
If a church would qualify as non-profit under the same rules as a theatre troupe, then there's no need for the religious component for non-profit status.
I agree, and I'm honestly not sure how the rules are different. I'm merely pointing out a logical conclusion of rkzenrage's assertions that all non-profits should give a provable base percentage to charity. There are valuable social services that many non-profits can provide without being direct charities.
Unless as a nation you are prepared to do what it takes to resolve problems like homelessness, drug-abuse, poverty and assorted other ills, I suggest you allow some of those churches to continue their outreach work. They take up a lot of the slack in the system. There are no doubt many are deserving of greater scrutiny, but just as the Church has historically been a force for obedience and acceptance, it's also often been the one organisation that has sought to ameliorate some of the worst conditions for poor communities.
Unless as a nation you are prepared to do what it takes to resolve problems like homelessness, drug-abuse, poverty and assorted other ills, I suggest you allow some of those churches to continue their outreach work. They take up a lot of the slack in the system. There are no doubt many are deserving of greater scrutiny, but just as the Church has historically been a force for obedience and acceptance, it's also often been the one organisation that has sought to ameliorate some of the worst conditions for poor communities.
Just look at Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker.
If it turns out they are making a profit, FUCK YES!. As an actor I have seen this happen and people getting rich off of actors who do not get paid... it is disgusting.
What if they use the extra money to grow--to buy better costumes, rent a bigger theatre space, put out more advertisements to get more audience members?
Why the attack?
Because your comment seemed flippant and directly intended to offend. I didn't realize you honestly had experienced such things in a church.
Then what does a church do? On Sunday morning, you goes in, you pays your money, you're forgiven and on track to heaven. I wasn't talking about indulgences, I was talking about fee for service. You pay your donation, and in return, you get......what?
Our church gave us a statement of our donations at the end of every year, so it was by no means anonymous, and they printed the previous week's total take in the current week's program.
No offense, but your church sucked. Printing the total amount given is very different than a list of who gave it. In most churches, less than 50% of the regular attendees give any money at all. But those who do give want to know their money is being used accountably, which is one reason yearly budgets and giving amounts are published--not necessarily to guilt people into giving more, but to show where the money's actually going.
The "fee for service" is actually a valid idea--you are paying for the weekly comfort, the marriage ceremonies, the funerals, the marital counseling, the childcare while you participate... you are also contributing to some amount of direct charity work, though how much varies widely with each church, as rkz has been pointing out. But forgiveness is absolutely not a function of church attendance or monetary donation, in the Protestant faith at any rate.
What if they use the extra money to grow--to buy better costumes, rent a bigger theatre space, put out more advertisements to get more audience members?
Was there something about "showing that they are using the funds to provide the service intended" that confused you?
Unless as a nation you are prepared to do what it takes to resolve problems like homelessness, drug-abuse, poverty and assorted other ills, I suggest you allow some of those churches to continue their outreach work. They take up a lot of the slack in the system. There are no doubt many are deserving of greater scrutiny, but just as the Church has historically been a force for obedience and acceptance, it's also often been the one organisation that has sought to ameliorate some of the worst conditions for poor communities.
Allow?
This changes none of that.
Was there something about "showing that they are using the funds to provide the service intended" that confused you?
No. Is there something about what "service" a church is "intended" to provide that confused you?
Yes. What "service" does it provide that should give it tax exempt status?
Art like theatre helps everyone and they can show that 80% of their income goes directly to providing art to ALL people who walk through their doors. You gonna' draw a comparison with a church.
80% who walk through the doors can be shown not to go to hell? LOL!!!!
As I already explained to Spexx: walking through the door, being a member, giving any dollar amount, or taking part in the church services do not give you either forgiveness or salvation. You have no idea how an average local church operates.
I would be willing to bet that 80% of a church's attendees have been to a wedding or funeral at that location, and/or received a positive, comforting experience from their attendance. That's what they came for and that's what they got, just like a theatre performance.
As I already explained to Spexx: walking through the door, being a member, giving any dollar amount, or taking part in the church services do not give you either forgiveness or salvation. You have no idea how an average local church operates.
I would be willing to bet that 80% of a church's attendees have been to a wedding or funeral at that location, and/or received a positive, comforting experience from their attendance. That's what they came for and that's what they got, just like a theatre performance.
So the local bar should also be tax-free.
Apparently, and they do a better job, one that can be quantified.
I love it... religion is art now... at least we are acknowledging that it is a lie.
Wait, when did you go back to being "HungLikeJesus?" You're confusing me, man! ;)
Apparently, and they do a better job, one that can be quantified.
Wow. I was giving HLJ the benefit of the doubt, that his post was a joke. You are obviously aware that a bar owner takes home a profit while no one takes home a profit with a non-profit organization.
The funny thing is you apparently think that I believe churches should stay tax exempt. I don't really care if they are or not, if they were they'd likely just set up separate organizations for their charity work so people could donate directly. I'm just trying to show you how your definition of what constitutes a "non-profit" and a "charity" and a "service" are skewed and hypocritical.
I was joking as well. Geez... well in that a church and a bar are the same thing.
My definition is neither.
Show me why. Be clear and specific, otherwise yours is just an ad-homonym statement meaning nothing.
So do you agree that this makes a church equivalent to a non-profit theatre troupe then?
I would be willing to bet that 80% of a church's attendees have been to a wedding or funeral at that location, and/or received a positive, comforting experience from their attendance. That's what they came for and that's what they got, just like a theatre performance.
So do you agree that this makes a church equivalent to a non-profit theatre troupe then?
I stated the complete opposite above... you may try reading the posts before yours, tail-poster.
Wow. I was giving HLJ the benefit of the doubt, that his post was a joke. You are obviously aware that a bar owner takes home a profit while no one takes home a profit with a non-profit organization.
The funny thing is you apparently think that I believe churches should stay tax exempt. I don't really care if they are or not, if they were they'd likely just set up separate organizations for their charity work so people could donate directly. I'm just trying to show you how your definition of what constitutes a "non-profit" and a "charity" and a "service" are skewed and hypocritical.
CF - I was making a joke - sort of. I truly don't understand what makes a non-profit/not-for profit company. I interviewed for a job with a non-profit engineering company. I asked the owner "do you get paid?" and he said, "Of course I do." So how is that different from a for-profit engineering company? I'm just confused.
...The "fee for service" is actually a valid idea--you are paying for the weekly comfort, the marriage ceremonies, the funerals, the marital counseling, the childcare while you participate...
Around here, you pay additional fees, I mean donation, for a wedding, the minister presiding over the wedding, childcare, etc.
... But forgiveness is absolutely not a function of church attendance or monetary donation, in the Protestant faith at any rate.
Not all Protestant sects are the same. Here's what the Lutherans do:
I confess that I am in bondage to sin and cannot free myself. I have sinned against you in thought, word and deed, by what I have done and by what I have left undone. I have not loved you with my whole heart, I have not love my neighbor as myself. For the sake of your son, have mercy on me. Forgive me, renew me and lead me, so that I may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name.
This is followed by a declaration from the Pastor (now facing us) to the congregation:
God, who is faithful and just, forgives us all our sins. As a called and ordained minister in the church of Christ, I declare to you the forgiveness of all your sins, in the name of the Father, and the son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Personally I don't think that artist groups should be tax exempt at all. They're an entertainment venue, not public service providers.
Art as something that should be free to the public is an excellent discussion, for another thread.
CF - I was making a joke - sort of. I truly don't understand what makes a non-profit/not-for profit company. I interviewed for a job with a non-profit engineering company. I asked the owner "do you get paid?" and he said, "Of course I do." So how is that different from a for-profit engineering company? I'm just confused.
The head of the Red Cross gets a million a year. Are they non-profit?
They are and have had SERIOUS book-keeping and corruption issues.
I stated the complete opposite above... you may try reading the posts before yours, tail-poster.
I'd love to read them, if you'd quit
editing them after you post. Your original post said only "I was joking as well. Geez." My request for clarification was legitimate. In addition, your edited version of your post still makes no sense:
I was joking as well. Geez... well in that a church and a bar are the same thing.
My definition is neither.
Show me why. Be clear and specific, otherwise yours is just an ad-homonym statement meaning nothing.
Your definition of what is neither?
Show you why what? If you mean show you why a non-profit theatre troupe and a church serve similar purposes to society, and both should follow the same rules regarding tax exemption, I've already done that, but I can summarize again for you:
1.) Both pay flat salaries to their employees (i.e., pastors and actors) and use remaining funds primarily for growth of the organization (i.e. spreading the message of the church and spreading their art to the community.)
2.) Patrons of both churches and theatres go for the feelings it gives them, and to spend time with other people who enjoy the same things they do.
3.) A sermon, a wedding, or a funeral are all equivalent to a play in terms of time invested and voluntary attendance by anyone who wishes to see. The one major difference is that a play sets a specific price that one
must pay to enter, whereas a church allows anyone to come for free for as long as they like.
Honestly, I would have thought you'd be all over the religion-as-entertainment analogy, rkz.
CF - I was making a joke - sort of. I truly don't understand what makes a non-profit/not-for profit company. I interviewed for a job with a non-profit engineering company. I asked the owner "do you get paid?" and he said, "Of course I do." So how is that different from a for-profit engineering company? I'm just confused.
I knew you were joking. The primary difference between a profit and a non-profit business is a for-profit business has a direct owner, whereas a non-profit kind of "owns itself". Their employees get paid a set salary, and any money over that goes towards whatever the function of the nonprofit is. They'll have a board of directors who make decisions for the company, but none of them get to take home any extra money if the non-profit has a record year. No one owns stock in the company. If the head of the board of directors wants to leave he just leaves, he can't sell the business to someone else because he doesn't own it. Think of it like a college fraternity, they collect dues and throw a party, but if they don't end up spending it all they just spend the money on the next party, the head of the fraternity doesn't get to just keep the extra money. When he graduates, they put someone else in charge, he doesn't get to take the fraternity with him.
Honestly, I would have thought you'd be all over the religion-as-entertainment analogy, rkz.
I am... but with one difference entertainment does not state that it is true, lying to the public to give them false hope to steal money from them based on false promises.
The enhancement that art gives is tangible and clearly stated, no inflated with lies and false claims of mystical properties "this painting will heal your child's cancer if you believe enough and give enough to the galleries fund", ever heard that? I think not.
There is NOTHING educational about religion.
Again, I think the status of art as non-profit is an excellent conversation for another thread.
I wish I could find this for you...
I saw a special recently, this man is in a wheelchair and his poor deluded wife wheels him into one of those sick places where they “heal” people.
Every day he gets wheeled back out.
They interviewed them.
They have been doing it for THIRTY YEARS!
“The pastor tells us to keep praying and soon it will be his time, as long as we believe hard enough” his crying wife says, as he looks down at his legs trying not to look at her or cry.
People in the background rejoice as this is going on, hugging their “healed” loved ones that, as we know, statistics tell us they will be just as sick very soon, as the adrenaline wears off.
He tells us, “I keep hoping this week will be my turn, but it will happen soon, pastor ___ keeps telling me and I know if I pray hard enough I’m going to get out of this chair”.
He is an L4 complete para.
They are both openly crying now.
They will not tell the crew how much they give to the church. They seem ashamed.
Every time someone tells my wife that she needs to take me to church it is all I can do…
You have no idea the sickness these people have to prey on those at their weakest just to make money off of them, to perpetrate their lies and deceit.
It is the deepest sickness.
They love to tell me that I “don’t know”, so I tell them to show me quantifiable proof of a healed full para or amputee and I will then go with them.
For SOME reason I never hear back from anyone. Fucking scumbags.
And YES, they DO KNOW EXACLTY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!
lying to the public to give them false hope to steal money from them based on false promises.
How do you know for a fact that it is a lie? And just for clarification purposes on my first post, I was referring to paying the "church" bills, not the ministers. Most ministers of small churches, may not get paid at all. So they have another job. (just wanted to make sure you knew what i was referring to on the "bill" part).
Is it the truth, have they seen a limb regrown before their eyes? Someone they KNOW is a true para get up and walk?
No?
Lie.
I thought you were referring to the "message" itself as a lie, not healing. However, I get what you are saying, on all accounts. I don't feel the same way. That's just my position.
How do you know for a fact that it is a lie?
Well, that's just the thing, isn't it? Many religious people do claim that they know for a fact. If you are using the inherent uncertainty of religious issues to question rkzenrage, then a claim of certainty by a religious person should be given the same treatment.
I thought you were referring to the "message" itself as a lie, not healing.
Of course, the healing is a more obvious lie, and could be tested, but I expect that the people would exhibit similar reactions to the dowsers I posted earlier, and be unwilling to accept that no healing actually occurred.
HM, I understand what you're saying. It's basically someone's fact/opinion vs another's fact/opinion. This is something that could be debated "forever", it is probably the most difficult thing, to "sway" someone away from a belief that they have held for most of their entire life.
I am... but with one difference entertainment does not state that it is true, lying to the public to give them false hope to steal money from them based on false promises.
The enhancement that art gives is tangible and clearly stated, no inflated with lies and false claims of mystical properties "this painting will heal your child's cancer if you believe enough and give enough to the galleries fund", ever heard that? I think not.
There is NOTHING educational about religion.
Yes, there are liars and cheats and scumbags in religion just as in elsewhere in life. Which has nothing to do with their non-profit or tax status. People waste ridiculous sums of money on Miss Cleo too--we call them stupid but do not attempt to force Miss Cleo out of business. If people willingly give their money to churches there is nothing you can do about it. This tangent you've gone off on is irrelevant to the concept of a church's status as a non-profit organization.
To use an expression you love so much...
it's very simple: do they meet the guidelines, or don't they? And if they don't, in what way do they fail the test where a non-profit theatre troupe passes it?
Again, I think the status of art as non-profit is an excellent conversation for another thread.
And again, I'm not debating that issue. Art can be designated non-profit or not, I don't care. But a church should be designated the same, whatever it is. 'Being factual' is not a requirement for non-profit status.
Yes, there are liars and cheats and scumbags in religion just as in elsewhere in life. Which has nothing to do with their non-profit or tax status.
Well, it is more annoying when a lying, cheating, scumbag is also tax-exempt.
A lot of avant-garde theatre is damned annoying too.
I'm not really willing to start making legislative distinctions based on how annoying something is; are you?
Not as such, but I certainly would have more objection to Miss Cleo than I do now if she got tax exemption.
Since their interactions with the "English" are often, if not mostly, for profit, I see no reason for them to be tax exempt.
And apparently
they do pay taxes. They don't pay for, or accept, social security or medicare, which is part of a religious exemption that I don't support.
Well, it is more annoying when a lying, cheating, scumbag is also tax-exempt.
If they can't show they provide a service it comes into play.
We make people feel "closer to tha' sky pixie" does not qualify.
HM, I understand what you're saying. It's basically someone's fact/opinion vs another's fact/opinion. This is something that could be debated "forever", it is probably the most difficult thing, to "sway" someone away from a belief that they have held for most of their entire life.
Wrong, providing housing with ___% of our income can be shown, no opinion on the service needed.
A fact is a fact. Opinions are useless.
"Opinions are useless." Yes, especially yours.
Of the 40 odd tax exempt non-profits in my zip code, none of them provide me with a fucking thing... zip... zero. By your reasoning, I should object to their tax free status. But I won't, because I'm not a selfish prick that whines about what benefits other people get that I don't.
Wow, I'm dazzled with the eloquence and logic behind your reasoning.... I'm swayed!
LOL!!!
seems like an awful lot emotionally charged argument on organized religion, not exemption or charitable status.
and an awful lot of ignorance as to how churches really work and the services they do provide and offer to everyone, regardless of whether or not you personally take advantage of them.
No, you will never be swayed. Hate has consumed you, permeated every cell in your body. That's why you spew it all over this board like a liquid manure spreader.
And as long as they can show that it is true and the majority of their funds spent... no issue.
I have no hate, I don't care what people believe... just what they do to others.
You are the one taking this personally.
How does one quantify a "religious school" and the costs associated with them? Or a shelter and the actual real estate themselves or the housing for pastors, priests and the like?
You are the one taking this personally.
I take it personally when a dog comes in a shits all over the house, like you do.
Whew, we just left the world huh?
I'm having a discussion.
If you want to turn it into something else, have at it, but it is just in your head.
Not me, I'm still here. You started just over 300 threads, in most of which you are busy telling other people what they must do, how they must run their lives, what they must believe, how they must raise their kids, how they must worship, to make you happy.
Spreading your hate far and wide like a petulant child. Boo hoo, people won't play my way... everybody's picking on me... I'm being oppressed.
Must be that 170 IQ that makes you think you have the only way to live properly and it's your duty to make everyone conform.
I have never done any of those things.
I give my opinion and look forward to discussions from both sides.
I do not, however, take those opinions personally like a little kid and misquote people to try to make myself look like something I'm not.
You are pitching a full-fledged fit and it is so damn funny I'm gonna' take a picture.
Are you kicking your feet?
I thought the idea of the Cellar was to discuss things, to learn from our differences.
I have admitted when someone has shown flaws in my reasoning and changed my views in here more than once.
I thank them and look forward to it happening again.
Please, in here, do it for me, show me a reasoned, logical argument that disputes my stance point-by-point... lay it out so I cannot refute it with reason and I will tell you that you have helped me be a better person and a more educated person.
It is a great day for me when this happens!
Do it, not a threat or challenge I REALLY want it, always... I like change and to know that I am wrong.
But, what you are doing now is just sad.
In a nutshell, religion does not deserve a hands-off approach to questioning discussions. Nor does it deserve the respect of anyone who does not share the belief.
Not respecting the belief does not disrespect the believer, that is a fallacy.
If you cannot handle them I don't understand why you involve yourself in them?
You've really only argued one main point through this entire thread rk. Over and over again you've said that you want documented proof that a certain percentage of the money that a church receives goes to basic charity acts which contain absolutely no religious overtones.
I have no problem with you saying this, but unless you address the fact that there are other organizations that are not this rigorous with their paperwork yet are still considered tax exempt you are beating a dead horse. Condemn all, or condemn none.
Although it didn't come up directly I'm sure you would argue that saying a prayer before serving a free meal at a soup kitchen is subversive, with the final intent being to recruit new parishioners rather then providing the hungry with a much needed service.
I have stated that I want the criteria to apply to all.
If religious charity workers prays before serving fine, as long as they don't require it of those it feeds.
Personally, I'm a little more concerned with how the government is spending our tax dollars rather than where it does and doesn't come from.
Whew, we just left the world huh?
I'm having a discussion.
If you want to turn it into something else, have at it, but it is just in your head.
it's in my head too.
You're an asshole. I say that in a state of perfect calm. And mean it.
::waiting for you to edit that into something entirely different::
I have never done any of those things.
The fuck you haven't, over and over like a hammer.
I give my opinion and look forward to discussions from both sides.
I do not, however, take those opinions personally like a little kid and misquote people to try to make myself look like something I'm not.
You not only misquote others you misquote yourself if it's convenient.
You are pitching a full-fledged fit and it is so damn funny I'm gonna' take a picture.
Are you kicking your feet?
No, but I'm going to be kicking yours from now on.
I thought the idea of the Cellar was to discuss things, to learn from our differences.
I have admitted when someone has shown flaws in my reasoning and changed my views in here more than once.
Not as often as you've changed your posts.
I thank them and look forward to it happening again.
Please, in here, do it for me, show me a reasoned, logical argument that disputes my stance point-by-point... lay it out so I cannot refute it with reason and I will tell you that you have helped me be a better person and a more educated person.
That's bullshit, YOU say, the millions of people that say they benefit from non-profit entities, like the Church, are wrong, because it can't be quantified to your satisfaction. You're arrogance is manifested in the hate you spew.
It is a great day for me when this happens!
Do it, not a threat or challenge I REALLY want it, always... I like change and to know that I am wrong.
But, what you are doing now is just sad.
It is you that is sad. A pathetic shell, eaten up by your own hate for everyone that won't toe your line, because they are somehow oppressing you. Newsflash, the world doesn't revolve around you and never will.
I have stated that I want the criteria to apply to all.
If religious charity workers prays before serving fine, as long as they don't require it of those it feeds.
Hear, hear.
That's why I'm a bit wary of any kind of charities based on religious ideologies. Tax exemptions are bad enough, but I find it even more disturbing when my taxes are going to subventions to religious organizations. Those who believe and can afford to pay should, but why should I?
Wrong, providing housing with ___% of our income can be shown, no opinion on the service needed.
A fact is a fact. Opinions are useless.
Thank you for telling me I'm wrong. Opinions might be useless, but like an asshole, everybody's got one.
Disappointing devolution into mud slinging here. :(
I have admitted when someone has shown flaws in my reasoning and changed my views in here more than once.
Cite.
You have repeatedly made this claim, but I am certain I've never seen it. Please link to just one post in the past year and a half where you have openly acknowledged you were wrong.
You have repeatedly made this claim, but I am certain I've never seen it. Please link to just one post in the past year and a half where you have openly acknowledged you were wrong.
Do you always throw stones in glass houses?
Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate. There exist some serious and unanswered questions about these non-profits. Take the Catholic Church as example. An institution that must be heavy in wealth simply because of the number of buildings owned in Manhattan. A church that receives unknown amounts in donations, but as Tom Clancy noted in his book, did not even have funds to support their own priests in mainland China.
A charity organization that had to be subpoenaed in Philadelphia to release hundreds of priests the church listed in files as pedophiles - and only in that one diocese. rkzenrage raises good questions about the credibility of these non-profit organizations who seem to have so little money left for charity work.
Those who better worship god by giving to charity should donate instead to the Red Cross - or even better the Salvation Army.
If someone can defend the financial integrity of those institutions, then put forth the facts. Don't attack the questioner. The subject is religious institutions that even have massive funds to make political statements and commercials. 700 Club? That is a non-profit charity?
They were separated at birth!
That's why I'm a bit wary of any kind of charities based on religious ideologies.
Also suspect are posts that would blindly support or defend such 'charities'. Are they charities? For whom?
Do you always throw stones in glass houses?
Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate.
Folks! Folks! Gather round. Hear ye, hear ye, the mighty, all-powerful tw has spoken! Let not there be dissension amongst ye dwellars, for the ways of the world have been shown to us all.
:cool:
Do you always throw stones in glass houses?
Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate
the point that codfobble was disputing was that he actually admits to being wrong. the glass houses analogy only works if you think she has made that claim. when in rome.....dont forget to eat a dick.
when in rome.....dont forget to eat a dick.
You mean COCK?
Meanwhile, the general point from rkzenrage is accurate. There exist some serious and unanswered questions about these non-profits. Take the Catholic Church as example. An institution that must be heavy in wealth simply because of the number of buildings owned in Manhattan. A church that receives unknown amounts in donations, but as Tom Clancy noted in his book, did not even have funds to support their own priests in mainland China.
A charity organization that had to be subpoenaed in Philadelphia to release hundreds of priests the church listed in files as pedophiles - and only in that one diocese. rkzenrage raises good questions about the credibility of these non-profit organizations who seem to have so little money left for charity work.
Those who better worship god by giving to charity should donate instead to the Red Cross - or even better the Salvation Army.
If someone can defend the financial integrity of those institutions, then put forth the facts. Don't attack the questioner. The subject is religious institutions that even have massive funds to make political statements and commercials. 700 Club? That is a non-profit charity?
Did you read the title of the thread?
I don't approve of the way the Catholic Church operates either but since I don't belong to that church, it's none of my business.
I don't like the way the Red Cross operates either, but I refuse to throw out the baby with the bath water.
How is your post responsive to tw's? His is relevant to the title of the thread. If religion were removed from the list of tax exemption factors (Ending God's Tax Exempt Status), would the 700 Club or the Catholic Church still qualify?
The fuck you haven't, over and over like a hammer.You not only misquote others you misquote yourself if it's convenient.No, but I'm going to be kicking yours from now on. Not as often as you've changed your posts.That's bullshit, YOU say, the millions of people that say they benefit from non-profit entities, like the Church, are wrong, because it can't be quantified to your satisfaction. You're arrogance is manifested in the hate you spew.It is you that is sad. A pathetic shell, eaten up by your own hate for everyone that won't toe your line, because they are somehow oppressing you. Newsflash, the world doesn't revolve around you and never will.
I have never stated any one is oppressing me.
I love how you read things into everything I type.
You are so fun, please never stop.
I hate no one and love everyone, including you.
Changing their tax-exempt status will change nothing in regards to what they "do" help or not, it will just make them responsible. Or, if they actually use their money the way they state they do, they will remain tax-exempt.
You mean COCK?
cock is one thing
eat a dick is another entirely
dont mix your pedaphiles
As for my changing my mind... I have done so a few time but cannot think of a specific other than my backing off of legislation in the abortion thread and apologizing and stating that I was wrong for my style in that thread.
However, in my time in there I have had my mind changed, and admitted it.
I look forward to it and appreciate it when it happens.
I do not assign ego or strength to being "right", in fact I respect someone FAR MORE the day I see them admit that they are wrong and a fact has swayed them and the day I learn that I am mistaken is a day that I spend the rest of in ELATED and in a GREAT MOOD.
But, and emotional argument will never do that.
Not as often as you've changed your posts.
I often add to my posts, I VERY RARELY change text that I have already written..
Bruce, you keep saying "hate", show me one emotional statement I have made toward the church.
I can tell you, I have issues, but I have not made them in here.
When some fuck-head tells my family that one of these hucksters can cure me, preying on their suffering just to steal their money... yeah, it pisses me off.
This is completely separate from that and tax issues do not enter into that. Other companies do it, like the cancer hospitals that imply that they can cure your cancer when no one else can... again, not a tax issue and does not belong in here.
That you cannot separate your intellect from your emotions does not belong in here and taking that out on the cellar is really unfair and sad.
I don't know what your problem is with me, I have never attacked you and never done anything but supported your posts.
I suspect you are working out issues that have nothing to do with what is going on in here on my posts.
BTW, some of my favorite charities are religious charities, one being the
Heifer International.
They are REAL charies.
Here's a suggestion, Rob...how about once you type what you want to say, step away from it for a second. Then add stuff if you want to, THEN post it. Again, you've added more stuff into a post after you've already posted. If you're gonna do that, at least have the courtesy to note what you added.
Why?
What is the issue with my adding to my posts after I think of it?
Because responses to your post made before the edit may not make sense after the edit, and it is courtesy to point out that it's not because they didn't understand you; it's because the post they were responding to was different.
It can also be misleading...and disingenuous at times.
As I said, I very rarely edit the first statement.
I usually just add to it.
I will just start to double post if you want?
At the very least, when you add stuff, put "edit:" before the new bit.
edit:
Like this.
I really have a problem with the Catholic Church being construed as a "church" and singled out in this thread (along with the likes of of the Bakkers, who were scam artists, not religious leaders, who used individuals' weaknesses to take advantage of them). Let's be honest - the CC is more of a business than spiritual sanctuary. The Vatican City isn't even a city so much as it's another world entirely, not even a part of any recognized country.
There's a huge difference between your local hometown church that provides religious and/or spiritual services, counsel, charity, etc., and the enormous CC, so full of pomp and circumstance, and headquartered in its own country, if you will, thousands of miles away, in secrecy. The local church, whether or not you subscribe to the particular ideologies of that church, makes an effort to be involved in its local community; provides meals, clothing, shelter to those in need; passes on tithings to orphanages, and the like; and, most importantly, provides spiritual counsel to those who desperately seek a 'higher' purpose or just something to believe in. Perhaps the biggest charity a church can offer is the time and effort of its pastors and counselors. The pastors, ministers, etc. usually have 'actual' jobs to pay the bills, or are retired, and don't take much pay, if any, from the church.
By contrast, the CC conducts itself as a business throughout the world. Even your soul has a price in the CC. It is a profitable organization that holds its finances in such secret, that it must be because it would be appalling to know the amount of money it rakes in.
I was born a Catholic, raised a Christian, and then grew a brain of my own. I am not religious, nor am I defending churches; I am spiritual, and I do take issue - HUGE issue - with organized religion as a whole. I do believe that there are many people, some of whom I have known very personally, that have been on the receiving end of the charitable donations of a church, most often in the form of personal and spiritual guidance, and, as much as I want to, I cannot deny that it was the church that helped to make them happy, healthy, kinder, and hold themselves to a higher standard.
I don't have a problem with non-profit organizations of
any kind being exempt - as long as they keep and produce the books that evidence that they are on the up-and-up. Just because I don't subscribe to their ideologies doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. I believe that battered women should stop fucking crying about it and leave their abusers, but I'm certainly not trying to make their lives harder by giving the battered women's shelters a hard time about how they manage their funds.
Edit:
Why?
Because you have no fucking manners.
And no fucking manners either.
How is your post responsive to tw's? His is relevant to the title of the thread. If religion were removed from the list of tax exemption factors (Ending God's Tax Exempt Status), would the 700 Club or the Catholic Church still qualify?
I don't know if they would or not. But my concern is for all the backwater/storefront churches that don't do an organized charity program. They do help parishioners in need as the they arise, not sufficient to qualify as a charity. Most of them have enough trouble keeping the roof repaired without the additional burden of taxes.
But this is what rkzenrage, wants. He want's to drive all religion out because he hates it so much.
Most of them have enough trouble keeping the roof repaired without the additional burden of taxes.
So do nonreligious organizations. Why should the churches be a special case?
Most nonreligious organizations are tax exempt. Go to post #30 and plug in your zip code.
So why couldn't the churches do the same?
Thay come under the same tax code, but hate monger doesn't want them to.
What are you talking about?
If you remove the religious component of the tax code then they would come under the same tax code. Currently they don't.
Tax code: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter F > PART I > § 501
Yes, and? Remove the religious component, and they can still qualify, by doing what the nonreligious organizations do, right?
I don't know if they would or not. But my concern is for all the backwater/storefront churches that don't do an organized charity program. They do help parishioners in need as the they arise, not sufficient to qualify as a charity. Most of them have enough trouble keeping the roof repaired without the additional burden of taxes.
But this is what rkzenrage, wants. He want's to drive all religion out because he hates it so much.
That's come crystal ball you have there. :D
So do nonreligious organizations. Why should the churches be a special case?
You know he's not going to answer you.
If you don't think churches are just the bees-knees and should be treated specially by government you "hate", LOL!!!!
At the very least, when you add stuff, put "edit:" before the new bit.
edit:
Like this.
Ok.
Edit:
Because you have no fucking manners.
And no fucking manners either.
By the above I see that I should look elsewhere for lessons, however.
Yes, and? Remove the religious component, and they can still qualify, by doing what the nonreligious organizations do, right?
They might or might not, depending on the size. By placing it in the federal law for
all religions, minority churches wouldn't have battle more popular denominations for equal status. That's part of the government not taking sides, not supporting one religion over another, the real meaning of separation of church and state.
There are very small nonprofits.
If they can do it, so could a small church.
Small non-profits only succeed when they fill a niche. But the point is, they still have to jump through hoops under government scrutiny. That's not separation of church and state.
They already have to jump through government hoops for other secular issues, why not taxes?
They already have to jump through government hoops for other secular issues, why not taxes?
Because then the government is deciding which religions are acceptable and which are not and I don't want Bush's flunkies doing that.
Acceptable for what? Whether it's a religion, "acceptable" or not, should not enter into the equation.
As I said, they already have to jump through government hoops for other secular issues, why not taxes?
What secular issues? Building permits?
Sure. And health codes, fire codes, etc. etc. Just about everything that comes with owning propery, except taxes.
Because that stuff is for the safety and protection of the people using the facilities. Comparing that to adding the additional burden of taxes is ludicrous.
Just thought of this this morning: if churches become just like any other non-profit, HM, what's to prevent them from spending money on legislative lobbying and supporting political candidates? Right now that's illegal (although of course some of them do anyway, but you can be assured that all of them would if they had their tax exempt status taken away.)
Because that stuff is for the safety and protection of the people using the facilities. Comparing that to adding the additional burden of taxes is ludicrous.
Everyone else has the "additional" burden of taxes, why not churches?
Just thought of this this morning: if churches become just like any other non-profit, HM, what's to prevent them from spending money on legislative lobbying and supporting political candidates?
There are laws[SIZE=1][pdf][/SIZE] regarding lobbying, etc. for nonprofits. If a church wants to remain a 501(c)(3) organization, it will remain under essentially the same lobbying and campaigning requirements.
Everyone else has the "additional" burden of taxes, why not churches?
Because then the government is charging people to exercise their religious freedom which is clearly a violation of the constitution.
Because then the government is charging people to exercise their religious freedom
No it isn't, as long as churches don't have to pay any
more than anyone else.
And I suppose that if churchgoers have to pay gas taxes while driving to church, that is also charging them to exercise religious freedom? And if they pay sales tax for their church clothes?
HM, you're doing a good job explaining this issue to people who want special treatment because...well....they want to feel special.
Not even close.
Exactly. When churches pay the same as everybody else, they aren't being charged to exercise their religious freedom.
Most nonreligious organizations are tax exempt. Go to post #30 and plug in your zip code.
Thanks. I didn't see the link the first time around. My list is too huge to post. There are so many organizations and ones I didn't even imagine.
There are laws[pdf] regarding lobbying, etc. for nonprofits. If a church wants to remain a 501(c)(3) organization, it will remain under essentially the same lobbying and campaigning requirements.
The publication you linked to applies directly to churches. Generally, 501(c)(3) organizations
may elect to spend a certain amount of income towards influencing legislation,
unless they are churches. (See "General Instructions" at the bottom of the form.)
Before I posted, I originally didn't have the word "essentially" in there. There would be differences, but as I read them they wouldn't be very significant.
The publication I posted has a section on how that works. That election is an alternate method of calculating the maximum amount spent. The standard method seems to be allowable for churches, if I am reading it correctly.
Exactly. When churches pay the same as everybody else, they aren't being charged to exercise their religious freedom.
Yes they are. Saying "everybody else" is putting a church on the same footing with an individual. A Church is made up of individuals that have already been taxed, so you want to double tax them in order to exercise their religion. Fortunately, the founding fathers foresaw your desire to repress the churches and wrote that protection into the Constitution. That's why the churches aren't taxed and can't participate in politics.
Time to stop churches having political rallies & hosting candidates then.
Yes they are. Saying "everybody else" is putting a church on the same footing with an individual. A Church is made up of individuals that have already been taxed, so you want to double tax them in order to exercise their religion.
And a corporation is made up of individuals that have already been taxed...:right:
Fortunately, the founding fathers foresaw your desire to repress the churches and wrote that protection into the Constitution.
Is that a fact, or are you presenting your opinion as fact, again?:headshake
That's why the churches aren't taxed and can't participate in politics.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
It looks like taxation after a religion has been "established" isn't protected, at least not by the founders. Those same, wonderful founders who didn't have the balls to make slavery unconstitutional.
Time to stop churches having political rallies & hosting candidates then.
Why would the congregation (again made up of individuals) not be allowed to give support to the candidate that best represents their values and interests?
Because as individuals, they can express their desires, but as a congregation, majority rules and can be a misrepresentation of the individual's preferences.
Why would the congregation (again made up of individuals) not be allowed to give support to the candidate that best represents their values and interests?
Because that is the definition of a political party or a political organization.
Yes they are. Saying "everybody else" is putting a church on the same footing with any other organization.
After I fixed your typo, I agree.
Time to stop churches having political rallies & hosting candidates then.
Absolutely.
Why would the congregation (again made up of individuals) not be allowed to give support to the candidate that best represents their values and interests?
The individuals may support whomever they like. They may not use church money (and thus church facilities, etc.) to do it.
Threads like these go on and on because no terms are defined and everyone is using similar words to mean different things.
From a quick google on the subject, a non-profit is defined as "an organization whose primary objective is to support an issue or matter of private interest or public concern for non-commercial purposes, without concern for monetary profit."
By that definition, my local Catholic church is a non-profit. It does not exist in order to create a profit and provides a number of valuable services to the community.
Threads like these go on and on because no terms are defined and everyone is using similar words to mean different things.
From a quick google on the subject, a non-profit is defined as "an organization whose primary objective is to support an issue or matter of private interest or public concern for non-commercial purposes, without concern for monetary profit."
By that definition, my local Catholic church is a non-profit. [COLOR=red]It does not exist in order to create a profit[/COLOR] and provides a number of valuable services to the community.
[COLOR=red]this is where you lose me.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]this is where you lose me.[/COLOR]
I don't see why it should. Our budgeting process is fairly transparent. Once a year they explain what the expected expenses are for the upcoming period and ask for donations to meet that need. No extra money is asked for. Anything left over at the end of the year rolls over to the next year.
you have to go back a bit farther, Dar.
"I’d like to start a religion. That’s where the money is."
[LIST]
[*]L. Ron Hubbard to [COLOR=#0000ff]Lloyd A. Eshbach[/COLOR], in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in OVER MY SHOULDER: REFLECTIONS ON A SCIENCE FICTION ERA, Donald M. Grant Publisher. [COLOR=#0000ff]ISBN 1-880418-11-8[/COLOR], 1983[/LIST]
... my local Catholic church is a non-profit.
My local Catholic church has nothing to do with LRon.
your local catholic church collects a tithing, i presume? I expect that they send at least some portion of that up the ladder toward Rome? (maybe I'm wrong about that) .....
ah, I'm being cute here....my real point was that IMO, religious orginizations (religions) exist in the first place because they are profitable. if there was no money/power/security in them, they would be practiced privately in peoples homes only.
your local catholic church collects a tithing, i presume? I expect that they send at least some portion of that up the ladder toward Rome? (maybe I'm wrong about that) .....
ah, I'm being cute here....my real point was that IMO, religious orginizations (religions) exist in the first place because they are profitable. if there was no money/power/security in them, they would be practiced privately in peoples homes only.
A small amount is sent to the diocese to help support the administrative offices there. AFAIK, none is sent to Rome.
I have to disagree with the last point. Certainly a lot of praying gets done in private. But I certainly appreciate the sense of community and bonding that going to church offers. "Wherever two are more are gathered..."
well, who can say, really? It is what it is. I don't go to church, and I sure as hell wouldn't go if I had to pay for it....Yet, I am glad to send my $300 to the cellar every month. .[size=1]...that's what every one pays, right?[/size]
Mmmhmmm...yup....bout that....
Well the OP was saying that churches aren't non-profit. I disagree with that and gave a counter example. That's the only point I intended to make.
I respect people who have other beliefs than mine. I only ask that others respect my beliefs. The anti-Christian anti-church posts on the Cellar over the past year have become venomous.
the argument was made, however that the excess income (remainder after expenses are met) that is used for expansion of the church is simply profit in sheep's clothing. semantics.
Except for the fact that those semantics also apply to other nonprofit organizations who seek to grow.
Except for the fact that those semantics also apply to other nonprofit organizations who seek to grow.
And I stated that if there was a year in which they wanted to apply for a waiver for that year to do that, at the expense of their services, then they could do so.
But, not growth being their sole purpose, that is profit.
yeah, sure. so this thread is about wanting to remove the churchs' tax exempt status. unless you also do it to the rest of the non profits, it aint right. 195 posts about that? i was only reading the drama.
the argument was made, however that the excess income (remainder after expenses are met) that is used for expansion of the church is simply profit in sheep's clothing. semantics.
There is an implicit assumption in there that the church benefits monetarily by having a larger congregation. That may be true in some cases, but I don't believe it is true generally. And it certainly isn't true at the church where I go.
There is a certain economy of scale in that no one family is overly burdened when the church gets to the size we are. However, there is certainly no motivation to be larger for size sake. More families mean more masses which means we need more priests, larger school etc.
There is an implicit assumption in there that the church benefits monetarily by having a larger congregation. That may be true in some cases, but I don't believe it is true generally. And it certainly isn't true at the church where I go.
a catholic church? are you kidding, dar? certainly
THE Catholic Church is motivated to increase the flock, isn't it?
and rage....you can't seriously believe that a church's ONLY motive for income is growth.... It makes sense that they should grow to servie their parisioners, but they spend their money providing for those in need. Not all religions are evil.
bad apples, for sure....but as a whole? be real.
a catholic church? are you kidding, dar? certainly THE Catholic Church is motivated to increase the flock, isn't it?
Well, hey. We're the Catholic church. Everyone already knows who we are, so how much do we really need to spend on PR? :D
There may be some effort made at the diocese level, but we don't send out door ringers. We try to make people feel welcome when they visit and there's a certain level of effort made to keep teens in the flock. But that's about it.
Not that I'm saying the Catholic church is perfect. Look how Syc got treated in StL.
So, no preference about large families or contraception, then? was i thinking of some other church?
a catholic church? are you kidding, dar? certainly THE Catholic Church is motivated to increase the flock, isn't it?
and rage....you can't seriously believe that a church's ONLY motive for income is growth.... It makes sense that they should grow to servie their parisioners, but they spend their money providing for those in need. Not all religions are evil.
bad apples, for sure....but as a whole? be real.
I did not say that.
I said they do not qualify as a charity based on the fact that their funds are spent on growth alone or to a VAST majority.
I don't believe in evil.
And I stated that if there was a year in which they wanted to apply for a waiver for that year to do that, at the expense of their services, then they could do so.
[COLOR=blue]But, not growth being their [COLOR=red]sole purpose[/COLOR], that is profit[/COLOR].
ORLY?
So, no preference about large families or contraception, then? was i thinking of some other church?
Ah. I wasn't thinking about increasing the flock in that way.
No to the first and yes, but to the latter.
There is no pressure at all to have large families. Most folks in the area have two or three. That's not to say we don't have any large families. But no pressure to do so.
As to the other - globally, there is a strict prohibition against contraception. Locally, it's more of a don't ask don't tell sort of thing. Once you're in the church and married, no one is going to ask if you're on the pill or whatnot. The question only gets asked when going through the marriage preparation. And even then my experience is that
most priests ask something along the lines of "If you are blessed with children, will you receive them gladly".
*shrug* No organization run by mortal man is perfect.
ah, I'm being cute here....my real point was that IMO, religious orginizations (religions) exist in the first place because they are profitable. if there was no money/power/security in them, they would be practiced privately in peoples homes only.
Not all are this way:
see church with no name.
(Incidentally, my husband grew up in this sect and his family is still part of it. I have never been to a "meeting", myself. I am just posting this to point out that there are sects of religion that do meet in homes, only and have no collection or tithing.)
ORLY?
True, poorly chosen wording, however more than once I stated churches do
some charity, but only as a
fraction of their activities.
Incidentally, my husband grew up in this sect and his family is still part of it. I have never been to a "meeting", myself. I am just posting this to point out that there are sects of religion that do meet in homes, only and have no collection or tithing.
COTWP has not yet started accepting donations...though maybe we should.
Not all are this way: see church with no name.
(Incidentally, my husband grew up in this sect and his family is still part of it. I have never been to a "meeting", myself. I am just posting this to point out that there are sects of religion that do meet in homes, only and have no collection or tithing.)
Like Quakers. yeah..I get that. these religions tend to be spun off of the originating religion, though, no? the origin of religion is a whole new debate though.
True, poorly chosen wording, however more than once I stated churches do some charity, but only as a fraction of their activities.
I also belong to the CCFA (Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America). They do
no charity work and yet they are a non-profit.
Like Quakers. yeah..I get that. these religions tend to be spun off of the originating religion, though, no? the origin of religion is a whole new debate though.
What original religion? Catholic? Jesus? I know...it is a whole new debate, but I want to understand what you mean by that.
well, Christianity to start.....but I think the real money was in sects. Catholicism, surely...Protestants later.....
I'm out of my depth when it gets detailed though.
Most non-profits (tax exempt) do no charity work, or so little it doesn't amount to anything. That said, the tax code separates religious organizations into a separate category from charities and non-profits.
As a matter of fact, if you look at Tax code: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter F > PART I > § 501, there are almost 30 different categories of tax exempt organizations. Things like Boy/girl Scouts, cemeteries, fraternities and the Rotary club are exempt, but I don't see them doing much charity work.
I forgot to add the local gun club with over 3,000 members. No charity there.
Most non-profits (tax exempt) do no charity work, or so little it doesn't amount to anything. That said, the tax code separates religious organizations into a separate category from charities and non-profits.
I can understand a non-profit organization that, for example, operates as a club. However what is the purpose of defining a non-profit that has no assets and no income? Do its members at least pay dues for the refreshments? Is it only a fixture to legally protect its members from what happens at the party? I don't understand the reason for a non-profit organization that has zero assets.
However what is the purpose of defining a non-profit that has no assets and no income?
I don't think anyone has suggested the existence of such an organization... :confused:
I can only guess that most any group that falls in that category would handle at least some dues or donations to cover activities. This would shield them from accounting and tax liability for the treasury that's keep in an envelope in Mildred's underwear drawer.
I don't think anyone has suggested the existence of such an organization... :confused:
See the web site posted by xoxoxoBruce. Maybe half of the non-profits are listed with zero assets and zero income. So the question is why would these organizations ever go throught the headaches of legal status and annual IRS filings when no money is even involved?
To put numbers to this. Americans donate about $100 billion per year to religious organizations. That amounts to 1 in every 3 dollars donated by private Americans to all charities.
Do those numbers come from claims on individual IRS returns, or from declarations of the recipients? I surprised it's only 1 in 3.
See the web site posted by xoxoxoBruce. Maybe half of the non-profits are listed with zero assets and zero income. So the question is why would these organizations ever go throught the headaches of legal status and annual IRS filings when no money is even involved?
Maybe they need legal status to limit liability.
Jimbo, I thought you ignored rkz a hundred or so posts back?
I disagree with rkz on this point though. Churches in general provide a service to some people in the community who don't fit into the criteria social services require. Some people need the church and the leadership it forms. Some people are sheep and can't find their way by themselves. It costs money to help people. (not to mention buying candles)
As to profits...well, obviously with attendance at churches dwindling, the 'profits' are surely dwindling comparitively. Anyway, have you tried running a church lately? What with cakes being on the outer (cause everyone's on the atkins diet) and not too many putting into the plate (cause there's too many theives in church), it's pretty hard to put the body of christ and wine on the table!
i have weak ignore power. it lasted like 8 hours. meh.
Do those numbers come from claims on individual IRS returns, or from declarations of the recipients? I surprised it's only 1 in 3.
Numbers from:
Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy
NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy
A book by an NYU author called "The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism"
An episode of Charlie Rose.
kept wonderin what they were sayin bout you huh?
your local catholic church collects a tithing, i presume? I expect that they send at least some portion of that up the ladder toward Rome? (maybe I'm wrong about that) .....
ah, I'm being cute here....my real point was that IMO, religious orginizations (religions) exist in the first place because they are profitable. if there was no money/power/security in them, they would be practiced privately in peoples homes only.
Good point. IMHO, religion is about support, religious
institutions are about power/wealth/control. I believe that each Catholic archdiocese in America is incorporated - to reduce liability, especially from pedophilia law suits.
..I disagree with rkz on this point though. Churches in general provide a service to some people in the community who don't fit into the criteria social services require.
Providing service is common, and the provider is almost always taxed. For instance, a doctor provides a service, and pays taxes. Why should a church be different?
Here we go...
The concept of separation of church and state, as outlined as a principle to hold by the penmen of the constitution (although, it still befuddles why they didn’t actually put it IN the constitution…), implies that the government should have NO control over any organization related to jebus, allah, Yahweh, FSM, or any religious figure whatsoever. As against the organized churches as I am, I’m going to have to say that taxation amounts to involvement.
Also, because they have no ‘product’ (other than than smug look on the face of clergy when I tell them of MY religious choice) per se, the logistics are near impossible whil maintaining that separation. Do we tax them like an individual or a business? How do we decide which of their income is deductible? What about tax write offs? Do we enforce minimum wage for the priests?
‘Hands off’ is the best way to look at it. Just as long as you’re absolutely hands off. That means no city, state, or federal gov’t can tax them… but can likewise not give them money, not built city improvements based on their needs, nothing. Or my personal favorite… NOT LEGISLATE GOD WHEN IT COMES TO MY DRINKING HABITS! No alcohol on Sundays = unconstitutional…. Just had to throw that last bit in.
... I realize that saying it's 'unconstitutional' right after saying that the principle was never placed in the constitution makes me look like a tool...
/me looks for that damned edit button.
Also, because they have no ‘product’ (other than than smug look on the face of clergy when I tell them of MY religious choice) per se, the logistics are near impossible whil maintaining that separation. Do we tax them like an individual or a business?
A business, of course. Why would you treat a church as an individual? xoxoxoBruce made the same weird connection.
How do we decide which of their income is deductible? What about tax write offs? Do we enforce minimum wage for the priests?
As with any other organization. We already have ways to determine all that stuff.
... I realize that saying it's 'unconstitutional' right after saying that the principle was never placed in the constitution makes me look like a tool...
/me looks for that damned edit button.
Unconstitutional refers to amendments as well. When the "penmen" wrote the constitution, they were figuring out a way to construct a better form of government. Once written, they had to sell it to the people. As written, the people couldn't see any advantage for themselves, that they would be better off or not be persecuted for various and sundry reasons as they had under other governments. The Bill of Rights was written as part of the Constitution, to assuage those fears, a primary one separation of church and state, before the people accepted it.
Providing service is common, and the provider is almost always taxed. For instance, a doctor provides a service, and pays taxes. Why should a church be different?
Because the doctor takes home your
required money and buys a new Rolex for himself. The church legally can only take your
voluntarily given money and do more church-y things with it. You don't want churches to be encouraged to run as for-profit businesses; it would make things so much worse.
Churches do, in fact, have retreats, counseling and services that they require fees for, some of the quite expensive. None of which they are taxed on.
Why would you treat it as an business? At what point does the church have to start charging their congregation in order to pay their taxes?
The problem with that, Monkey, is that we give tax breaks for businesses for things like supplies, different percentages for profits, etc. How can we decide which parts of their moneys are worth taxing and which are not? Does money donated by congregation to build a new steeple count? Well, there have been cases where a community 'bands together' to help a local business owner rebuild after a fire, and we wouldnt tax that, right? Is it a flat tax, in which case the major religions would have undeniable advantage over 'start up' religions? Or is it based on how much money is donated? Maybe churches wouldn't stoop to a mandatory fee, but then maybe they make richer patrons pay more... maybe they make newcomers pay more...
Anything that the government does that has any effect on which religion it's populace chooses (i.e. whichever church isn't charging to cover their taxes), or worse yet over the survival of a religion period is danger territory. We simply can't afford to give the government any say over our churches, whether directly or indirectly through money.
Providing service is common, and the provider is almost always taxed. For instance, a doctor provides a service, and pays taxes. Why should a church be different?
I would think that the main reason is most of the money donated to charities which include churches, comes from people who've already been taxed on their income, therefor, to tax it again would simply be wrong.
I guess when you get right down to it, if I give money to a church, I would then expect it to be used for the benefit of my community not the government, because I already give the government money in the form of taxes.
On top of that, churches are supposed to be non-profit organizations and if you don't make a profit as a business you don't pay tax anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point in my opinion.
kept wonderin what they were sayin bout you huh?
no...if you browse while not logged in, you still see them, and also when people quote. It's a useless feature. I was just pissed .....and pissed at that time. I shouldn't have called him a coffin dodger. that was not cool.
Ohh you're a cock and sneaky! very nice
*scribblin notes*
I would think that the main reason is most of the money donated to charities which include churches, comes from people who've already been taxed on their income, therefor, to tax it again would simply be wrong.
Ain't that the truth. And doesn't that make sales tax/property tax also double taxation as we already pay income tax albeit low... just a thought.
I guess when you get right down to it, if I give money to a church, I would then expect it to be used for the benefit of my community not the government, because I already give the government money in the form of taxes.
Why do you differentiate between the community and the government? I think if you sit down and think about everything our government does with our money you'll see that line blur a lot. Roads, hospitals, community centers, schools, police force, libraries, emergency services, public transit, a military to protect it all, and countless other things I can't think of right now.
All these are things that we couldn't possibly have created as a people had we had a much smaller government that was less localized. Concentration of the money that people contribute to the community (if you think about taxes, church donations, and other things of that nature, they're all personal contributions to a greater organization, willing or not) makes these large scale public works possible. If you ask me, all these services are far more important to my community than any church potlucks that might come out of the collection dish.
Well the reason I differentiate is because i already gave the government money for those things when I paid my taxes. The government is then using those funds for the improvement of my community - very broadly speaking of course.
I see churches as offering emergency aid to those who've 'fallen on hard times' to use a cliche. Supposedly, this is why people put money in the plate. of course, this is not a perfect world and this isn't always the outcome. I'd probably elect not to have my taxes spent on weapons to kill people with if I had a choice, but unfortunately that's not how it works. If you live in a community, you have to take the good with the bad sometimes.
queequeger, those things you named are funded by money from different governments, federal, state and local.
queequeger, those things you named are funded by money from different governments, federal, state and local.
Yup. I don't see that that makes a difference to my argument. Maybe I don't understand your point?
I see churches as offering emergency aid to those who've 'fallen on hard times' to use a cliche.
Aha! If we did things my preferred method (i.e. northern european model of social capitalism) the government could fill that role and we'd not have to worry about the people helping the needy trying to convert for their religion. I for one don't think I should have to hear a sermon about the ills of sin to have some soup at a kitchen.
i agree with you on that one (about the sermons etc). Unfortunately there aren't too many non-religious charities that can offer these types of aid on a large scale.
Ideally, no one should need these services anyway, but we know the world has a long way to go before we reach that point.
Money given to the state and federal government comes back with strings, if at all, to the community. Rarely is it distributed evenly or fairly, so it makes a big difference which taxes you're talking about. You can't blur that line too much.
Well, the different governments do have different jobs to do, but I would venture to say that money does get back to local communities via earmarks and subsidies (which we've decided apparently are 'bad'). Most congressmen put through additions to bills that fund specific projects or areas of their home states/districts.
Now, that's not to say that they're evenly or fairly distributed, :edit: in fact they're often in personal interest to the congressmen themselves :edit:, but I'm looking at the possibilities of the system, not the system as it is now. Because we all know it's been busted for a while, and the more we ignore the problem the longer it stays. For instance, I'm all for federal funding of schools, because the fed has so much more money to throw around, if it's done right we'd never worry about underfunded schools again.
Not getting into the inequities of our system, (and I say 'our' meaning the US's), I think it's important to find what we think is our perfect government and work toward that, not slap together some hodgepodge of rules and systems that are designed just to keep it from falling apart.
Well, if you want the US to head for your utopia......
Aha! If we did things my preferred method (i.e. northern european model of social capitalism) the government could fill that role and we'd not have to worry about the people helping the needy trying to convert for their religion.
.... then the first thing to do is secure the damn borders or we'd be broke (us & US) in no time.
Well, if you want the US to head for your utopia.......... then the first thing to do is secure the damn borders or we'd be broke (us & US) in no time.
Why would we be broke!? This concept that immigrants are going to swoop in and 'steal our welfare check' is ridiculous. People who work make money, pay taxes with that money, buy products that bolster our economy, and the work some more. In short, they're just like us!
They would integrate into the folds of our economy within a few years, and then sure enough I'm willing to bet they'll be complaining about the next wave of immigrants.
In fact, by only letting a few people in, we're ensuring that they DO send their money elswhere vice keeping it in our economy.
Bullshit, with free everything and open borders we'd be deluged with humanity from all over the world, not just the Americas.
But if the US wasn't spending trillions of dollars on wars in other countries they could afford it right?
OK, what about if everyone stopped using so much electricity? That'd save money right?
Only having a rubbish collection every two-three weeks instead of weekly?
There's absolutely nothing that could save us from the onslaught.
What about if America didn't seem like such a good place to live. lol
What about if America didn't seem like such a good place to live. lol
But why wouldn't they? It's the greatest place on earth. Obviously if they opened their borders the entire world's poor and disaffected would decamp to the Land of the Free.
hey...he doesn't look like any american I've ever met.
He does kinda resemble this greek guy I knew once apon a time though...cept the greek guy didn't wear tights. At least, not when I was around.
Always beware Greeks wearing tights....or something like that...
But why wouldn't they? It's the greatest place on earth. Obviously if they opened their borders the entire world's poor and disaffected would decamp to the Land of the Free.
You're going to be in trouble with that sort of talk Dana...you mischevious little imp you! lol
Of course that's where they'd go if the borders were opened. Where else would they go?
Britain? Apparently if we don't slam the borders shut sometime soon, there'll be a gang of Eastern Europeans the size of Belfast descending on us overnight.
Better watch out. You don't have too much room left for more people.
That's right! Hey...we're a small Island...we have to protect ourselves from the onslaught...fuck....if too many arrive they'll weigh us and down and the whole motherfucking Island could sink! Imagine that!
Yeah...then you'd all float south and end up in Oz...but this time not as convicts. Instead you'd be refugees and we'd lock you up when you get here. ;)
hahahahaha. *pauses to choke on coffee* hahahaha
(Did you ever read that essay that Greg Egan wrote about asylum in Australia? It's caled No Sugar. It really does get to the nub of Australia's (and the UK's) approach to asylum. I think you'd find it interesting. I'll try find you a link.)
Don't do that. You're entertaining me. lol
*grins* Finally my life has some purpose!
lol...I'm sure it had purpose before. It just wasn't as important as it is now.
I've found my special purpose!
Now if only i could find mine....or my happy place. One or the other will do me fine.
I suppose jimbo will be in here posting 'gabbly' some time soon.
More than likely :P Alas though, I have to vanish and leave you to your gin and musings :)
It's about time i had a shower and took myself off to bed anyway.
Have a great weekend matey. I'll catch up with you soon. :)
Bullshit, with free everything and open borders we'd be deluged with humanity from all over the world, not just the Americas.
Free what? Last I checked, nothing I have received so far has been 'free.' Looking at the substantial tax deduction on my paycheck, I'm paying for all the government programs I use, and I pay for my health-life-car-property insurance, food, rent, electricity... pretty much everything else myself. In fact, the only things I can think of that I've received 'for free' have been my first semester in college from my parents (still paying the rest of those!) and various gifts from friends.
Immigrants as a whole don't show up, walk into a welfare office and get a check. They work and they PAY for the services they use via taxes. This concept that people who immigrate are freeloaders really frustrates me. They're not. And the simple fact is, there's absolutely no logical reason to deny them access to the thing that we love so very much:money and freedom to spend it. Because frankly, it won't cost us anything.
And yes, the
trillions of dollars we've spent on our military could fund just about every civil project we can fathom. I don't think people realize just how much we spend on our standing army.
Originally Posted by queequeger
Aha! If we did things my preferred method (i.e. northern european model of social capitalism) the government could fill that role and we'd not have to worry about the people helping the needy trying to convert for their religion.
Free what? Last I checked, nothing I have received so far has been 'free.' Looking at the substantial tax deduction on my paycheck, I'm paying for all the government programs I use, and I pay for my health-life-car-property insurance, food, rent, electricity... pretty much everything else myself.
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Well, if you want the US to head for your utopia.......... then the first thing to do is secure the damn borders or we'd be broke (us & US) in no time.
What the hell do you think would happen to those "northern european" countries with a sudden 20, 30, 40% increase in population? I can tell you, they'd become third world nations pretty damn quick.
Ok, I've dug for about 20 minutes looking for specific numbers on how many people apply for visas every year. I found one as low as 3 million (post 9/11) and I found one as high as 13 million. Let's cut it even and say it's 10 million who apply. Even if we allow every last on in, which I'm not proposing (probably set a limit at 8 million a year and see where that gets us, more if necessary later), that's a 3% rise. Let's consider that about half of those are re-applications (which is likely more, as we only allow .6 - 1.2 million in each year, depending). After a year or two, the number would drop significantly.
In a country with a population of 300 million people, where's this 40% going to come from?
If the ENTIRE COUNTRY OF MEXICO (100 million strong) immigrated into our country, our population would rise by about 30%...
Wikipedia has some wonderful stats on US immigration throughout the ages... did you know that in 1830 the US population was about 17 million? How about the fact that 800 thousand foreign born immigrants crossed our borders over a decade, accounting for a 4.7% increase in our population? The following decade, 2.2 million immigrated, accounting for a ~10% increase in population size.
By my guesstimation, the US allowing 30 million people into the country over the next decade would be about equivelent. Right?
Remind me what catastrophic economic event occured around 1850. I've used VERY high extimates to avoid argument where possible, so that if we allow that old fashioned hubris that 'everyone on the globe wants to live here!' it can be shown that there will be no great collapse of the super power. Our economy is a draft horse, and can bring impressive power to bear when need be. How about we stop being so selfish, and instead of increasing our GDP 4-5 % annually, we can only increase by about 3% for a few years? Dear god, it's the end of the world.
:gasp: man that was a long winded retort. I just blew my whole lunch!
You were so busy retorting you forgot to read.
I said if we move toward your ideal of a "northern european model of social capitalism" where the state provides for all in need, and throw open the borders to any and all, we'd be overwhelmed and broke in short order.
If you don't think open borders would produce more than 100 million immigrants, your sadly out of the loop. The 10 million that can both afford to apply AND think that have the remotest possibility of making it, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people that would move here, given their druthers.
If you don't think 100 million plus, un, and semi, skilled workers would fuck this country up, you're very naive. Sure some would be skilled or professionals, but those jobs would fill up quickly and those people would already be better off than most, where they are now. So those people would slow to a trickle quickly. The deluge would be people with nothing... and nothing to lose.
If you don't think open borders would produce more than 100 million immigrants, your sadly out of the loop. The 10 million that can both afford to apply AND think that have the remotest possibility of making it, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people that would move here, given their druthers.
If you don't think 100 million plus, un, and semi, skilled workers would fuck this country up, you're very naive. Sure some would be skilled or professionals, but those jobs would fill up quickly and those people would already be better off than most, where they are now. So those people would slow to a trickle quickly. The deluge would be people with nothing... and nothing to lose.
This sounds very dramatic and all, but...
Realistically, over what period of time would 100 million immigrants cross the open borders, if we had them? Presently, about 400,000 arrive legally per year, and it's estimated that about 1 million cross or try to cross illegally per year.
Many people come here because there is work available. If the available work dries up, the incentive is reduced. And you forget that many immigrants start their own businesses.
Many people come here because there is work available. If the available work dries up, the incentive is reduced.
Many immigrants also leave because living in America is so tough. Despite many who assume we make it easy, the reality is many return home because America has so support services.
I am specifically thinking of two immigrants who both went home. Making it as an immigrant in America is not easy - in direct contradiction to the many who assume they live fat and happy on our social services.
I am struck not only by the attitude of so many immigrants to work. I am also struck by how better educated so many are compared to their American peers. I am struck by how so many Americans know things - and yet never bother to get an education.
If the only obstacle was the cost of transportation, I think it would be pretty fast. And with queequeger's "northern european model of social capitalism" in place, they wouldn't have to worry about work being available.
As it is now, transportation is a huge obstacle for many.
Bruce, you're still operating under the assumption that the northern european model is some sort of welfare system that passes out checks and takes nothing. Yes, they provide many services, but they tax very high rates as well. Immigrants WORK. Immigrants PAY TAXES. They do NOT GET ANYTHING FOR FREE. If you can point out something that a large number of immigrants who don't pay taxes use, please do. Any one social service will do.
And no, there would not be 100 million people coming across our borders in a few years. I don't know if you realize this, but while we still have a reputation of being the 'land of opportunity,' we also have a reputation of being the land severe assholes who are in love with punishment. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not, it's held by a great number of people from all over the globe. Think about it. ~10 million people choose to try immigration to the US... out of 5 billion (maybe it's 6 or so).
This level of hubris that is required to honestly believe that the rest of the planet hates where they are and loves where we are is ridiculous. Go to just about any country in the world and ask some locals. They love their cultures, they love their families, and they love their homelands just like we do. Giving up everything you've known in search of better living is a priority for some, but not nearly as many as you'd think.
this is a favorite topic of yours, quee? the immigrant thing?
Bruce, you're still operating under the assumption that the northern european model is some sort of welfare system that passes out checks and takes nothing.
Bullshit I know exactly how it works.
Yes, they provide many services, but they tax very high rates as well. Immigrants WORK. Immigrants PAY TAXES. They do NOT GET ANYTHING FOR FREE.
They do if they are not working. The services don't stop when there are no jobs.
If you can point out something that a large number of immigrants who don't pay taxes use, please do. Any one social service will do.
Again, fucking read what I said. [COLOR="Red"]IF we move to a northern european model AND we throw open the borders, we will be broke.[/COLOR]
And no, there would not be 100 million people coming across our borders in a few years. I don't know if you realize this, but while we still have a reputation of being the 'land of opportunity,' we also have a reputation of being the land severe assholes who are in love with punishment. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not, it's held by a great number of people from all over the globe.
You're buying into the left wing guilt trip.
Think about it. ~10 million people choose to try immigration to the US... out of 5 billion (maybe it's 6 or so).
Yes, 10 million have the wealth and confidence to give it a shot. When it takes less wealth and no confidence, 100 million is easily plausible.
This level of hubris that is required to honestly believe that the rest of the planet hates where they are and loves where we are is ridiculous. Go to just about any country in the world and ask some locals. They love their cultures, they love their families, and they love their homelands just like we do. Giving up everything you've known in search of better living is a priority for some, but not nearly as many as you'd think.
Yet 10 million of these happy campers face almost insurmountable odds to try it every year. Your case doesn't hold water.
They do if they are not working. The services don't stop when there are no jobs.
Actually in the UK people who receive income support or unemployment benefit pay a nominal amount of tax on those benefits and also their 'stamp' (national insurance).
I'm paying for all the government programs I use,
Are you on Medicaid? I'm willing to bet you're actually paying for government programs you
don't use. And I've known several people on those programs: tax incentives are such (especially for those with children) that if they have jobs that withdraw taxes in the first place, they get 100% (or more, believe it or not, just ask a low-income single parent) of their taxes back in their refund check. So they are not paying for the services they receive (you are, as we established.) Now, what if there were millions more of people like them, and only a couple of hundred thousand more of people like you? Even if the majority of the disadvantaged embrace the American dream and rapidly climb the social ladder, we are still talking about a major deficit for at least a decade or two.
If you can point out something that a large number of immigrants who don't pay taxes use, please do. Any one social service will do.
Hospital ERs. People with no insurance (and no Medicaid because they are undocumented) use ERs like general clinics. I imagine the problem is not nearly so visible in Georgia. Come visit Texas sometime.
If you can point out something that a large number of immigrants who don't pay taxes use, please do. Any one social service will do.
As Clodfobble said, hospital ERs. Also public schools. There are districts in Texas (and, most likely, in other states) that are overwhelmed by non-English speaking illegal immigrant children/families. Every child has access to the public school system regardless of whether the parents are paying taxes.
Hehe, yeah lumberjim this is deffo one of my favorites.
You're buying into the left wing guilt trip.
No, I'm 'buying into' international opinion polls. I'm 'buying into' the news.
Yes, 10 million have the wealth and confidence to give it a shot. When it takes less wealth and no confidence, 100 million is easily plausible.
Please, support your claim. 10 million was a number (a high number) assumed based on the average number of people that was estimated applied. If you just assume that 'only those that really really think they can make it' applied, why not just pull any number out of your hat? How about there are 500 million that would apply if we opened our borders? How about a billion? I bet the entire population of China would apply.
Yet 10 million of these happy campers face almost insurmountable odds to try it every year. Your case doesn't hold water.
My argument that most people like where they live doesn't hold water? Based on the fact that every year nearly .002% of the globe applies for their stake in the greatest place on the planet? I can see how I was wrong to think they didn't have penis envy.
And to the others, In my zealousness I overstepped in my argument and have to retreat a bit. My apologies. There are social services that an unworking immigrant can use, and there are services that I don't use that I pay for. It's part of the social contract we have. What happens is I pay for Medicaid, knowing that when I DO need it, many workers younger than I will willingly pay for it. And if I never need it, I'm happy to pay so others can use it. Right now, about 13 percent of the country is enrolled in Medicaid whereas most of those are working pay. So even if one in ten immigrants do fit into that lazy stereotype (which they don't), we still maintain the balance.
And jobs aren't some physical commodity. The more people are in an economy, the more jobs there are. More immigrants > more workers > more consumers > more jobs > more immigrants > ad nauseum. We've gone from a country of 20 million (in 1850) to 300 million. And so far, the number of immigrants has yet to cripple our economy.
If we instantly legalized all of the immigrants in our country now, they would get the same services they have now, AND pay taxes (and be susceptible to minimum wage laws... another plus!)
Every argument so far is
not based off the concept that immigrants are good working people, but we just can't afford it. The argument I've seen is that they are conniving sneaky lazy people trying to take advantage of us. I need someone to show me this is true for me to continue, otherwise my every argument will be met by 'but they're lazy!'
Unless someone can show me otherwise, I still stand by the opinion that 99% of this planet is comprised of good people, and that includes every country. I just can't believe that the thought that goes through an immigrant's head is "I'm going to move to America and live off of the citizens there. They give away free shit!" In fact, what they really think is, "I'm going to move to America and live off the job I get there. They have a good economy that I can be a part of."
If you're not acting out of love, don't act at all. So, even if they DO count as a 'burden' on our economy, If I have to pay some extra taxes to support some
millions of people having a better life, and doing what they find most enjoyable... well shucks I guess I'll just wait to buy that TV that costs the same as some people's yearly salary.
Please, support your claim. 10 million was a number (a high number) assumed based on the average number of people that was estimated applied. If you just assume that 'only those that really really think they can make it' applied, why not just pull any number out of your hat? How about there are 500 million that would apply if we opened our borders? How about a billion? I bet the entire population of China would apply.
I suggest you talk to Luisa, in the Philippines, to see how difficult and expensive it is to just
apply to come here under the current system. That, with the odds of making it being so low, 10 million (your number) shows how many would come with no restrictions.
My argument that most people like where they live doesn't hold water? Based on the fact that every year nearly .002% of the globe applies for their stake in the greatest place on the planet? I can see how I was wrong to think they didn't have penis envy.
So the 7 million people that have starved to death, so far this year, would not have rather been here? The millions of people living in refugee camps would rather not of been here? The billions living in eternal poverty and draconian governments, would rather not be here? Grow up.
If you're not acting out of love, don't act at all. So, even if they DO count as a 'burden' on our economy, If I have to pay some extra taxes to support some millions of people having a better life, and doing what they find most enjoyable... well shucks I guess I'll just wait to buy that TV that costs the same as some people's yearly salary.
Well, Pollyanna that's just wonderful. I'm glad you're so happy spending
my money.
Queequeger, I agree with a lot of what you say but I diagree with one point.
he more people are in an economy, the more jobs there are.
This is only true when an economy can grow with the rate of rising population growth. Take Rwanda for example, they experienced massive population growth but their economy couldn't keep up with the rising number of people, and they rose over the tolerable population limit, along with other political factors, and genocide broke out.
As long as our economy can handle the rising number of immigrants, I don't mind open border policies, but you have to make sure that you can lock down immigration if it does become a problem because over population is one of, if not the worse thing that can happen to a country.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, I still stand by the opinion that 99% of this planet is comprised of good people, and that includes every country.
You are going into philosophy on this one. This question has bothered me a lot until a month or so ago. When I was a little kid, I used to think that people were inherently good, then when I got into high school and had a rough spot in my life, I switched to thinking that people were inherited bad, then when I got out of high school and got my life back on track I switched to people are inherently neutral and are just products of their genetics and more importantly, social factors. When I look back, I realized that the only difference was my perspective of people and how they acted. When I thought people were good, I usually saw the the good things, when I thought people were bad, I usually saw the bad things, when I thought people were neutral, I usually saw conformity.
So now, I don't really think that people are inherently anything since three people can look at the same event in three different perspectives and come out with three different outcomes of humanity. I don't think any choice is right or wrong, since different conclusions fits better depending on the person.
For this situation I do agree with you though. People do try to make the best for themselves, so I doubt millions of immigrants would come to a country just to live as an illegal leaching off the system. Since it is such a very tough life as an illegal immigrant and many immigrants do leave the US when they can't find a job, I am guessing that there is delusional idea that America is a great place to live a stable life just like the delusional idea that California was a stable place to live in the Great Depression. Once they get here, they just try to make the best for themselves, whether that means working 90 hour weeks on less than minimum wage with a constant threat of being deported or receiving welfare. There is no good or bad about it, just self-interest that tends to conflict with conservative's self-interest.
You are going into philosophy on this one. This question has bothered me a lot until a month or so ago. When I was a little kid, I used to think that people were inherently good, then when I got into high school and had a rough spot in my life, I switched to thinking that people were inherited bad, then when I got out of high school and got my life back on track I switched to people are inherently neutral and are just products of their genetics and more importantly, social factors. When I look back, I realized that the only difference was my perspective of people and how they acted. When I thought people were good, I usually saw the the good things, when I thought people were bad, I usually saw the bad things, when I thought people were neutral, I usually saw conformity.
So now, I don't really think that people are inherently anything since three people can look at the same event in three different perspectives and come out with three different outcomes of humanity. I don't think any choice is right or wrong, since different conclusions fits better depending on the person.
Insightful post.
For this situation I do agree with you though. People do try to make the best for themselves, so I doubt millions of immigrants would come to a country just to live as an illegal leaching off the system. Since it is such a very tough life as an illegal immigrant and many immigrants do leave the US when they can't find a job, I am guessing that there is delusional idea that America is a great place to live a stable life just like the delusional idea that California was a stable place to live in the Great Depression. Once they get here, they just try to make the best for themselves, whether that means working 90 hour weeks on less than minimum wage with a constant threat of being deported or receiving welfare. There is no good or bad about it, just self-interest that tends to conflict with conservative's self-interest.
I think you are off base here. They are leaching off the system in many ways but contributing in ways as well. And I agree that it is all about self interest. I am not quite sure what you mean in your last bit,
"just self-interest that tends to conflict with [b](a) conservative's self-interest. Do you mean to imply that a conservative thinks that the self interest of the illegal alien conflicts with theirs?
Yes, because sometimes the self-interest of the illegal immigrants is to use government sponsored programs and conservatives self-interest is usually to not have the government tax the people.
Conservatives want low taxes, so by illegals using government sponsored programs, they are raising the taxes, going against conservative's interests. And sometimes an illegal alien's best interest is to use government sponsored programs (health care, education, welfare), so there is a clear paradox. This conflict of interests is intensified by the illegal part, which goes against most conservative's morality system, which just adds fuel to the fire.
What happens is I pay for Medicaid, knowing that when I DO need it, many workers younger than I will willingly pay for it. And if I never need it, I'm happy to pay so others can use it. Right now, about 13 percent of the country is enrolled in Medicaid whereas most of those are working pay. So even if one in ten immigrants do fit into that lazy stereotype (which they don't), we still maintain the balance.
You are confused. Medi
care is for the elderly, and you may use it someday, assuming it is even still around (at current rates, the program is already estimated to go bankrupt in another decade or so.) Medi
caid is for the poor, and you are almost certain to never be that poor. It's not about being lazy. The guy who mows my lawn works really freaking hard, and I would never in a million years call him lazy--but guess what? He
is poor. And being self-employed, his wife and kids are either on Medicaid or nothing. And he's not the immigrant; his parents were. They were even poorer. His family had the best attitude we could hope for from immigrants, but success takes time.
His children will probably not be on government assistance as adults--so two generations, or about 40 years.
All of which is great, I do sincerely believe we need people like that coming into our country, and the current state of immigration laws encourages the "anchor baby" people and not the hard-working people. Fully open borders is definitely not the answer--a better process for determining who gets to come in, and a better process for keeping out the ones we've decided don't get to come in, is.
Yes, because sometimes the self-interest of the illegal immigrants is to use government sponsored programs and conservatives self-interest is usually to not have the government tax the people. Conservatives want low taxes, so by illegals using government sponsored programs, they are raising the taxes, going against conservative's interests. And sometimes an illegal alien's best interest is to use government sponsored programs (health care, education, welfare), so there is a clear paradox.
Illegal aliens use of our social systems have no effect on the level of taxes we pay. But the use of the systems by illegals does in fact decrease resoources that would have otherwise been available to legal citizens, the only ones that should be eligible for it, except in the case of emergency, and even then their governments should pay the bill not the US taxpayer.
This conflict of interests is intensified by the illegal part, which goes against most conservative's morality system, which just adds fuel to the fire.
Well you should be cautious to make statements like, "which goes against most conservative's morality system". That is an incorrect assumption.
I suggest you talk to Luisa, in the Philippines, to see how difficult and expensive it is to just apply to come here under the current system. That, with the odds of making it being so low, 10 million (your number) shows how many would come with no restrictions.
That's anecdotal. I could easily provide other stories of individuals to support my claim. I was asking for some sort of actual evidence of so many people wanting to come here.
And please, calm down the name calling and personal insults. All you do with things like that is make enemies of people who hold no ill will toward you.
As long as our economy can handle the rising number of immigrants, I don't mind open border policies, but you have to make sure that you can lock down immigration if it does become a problem because over population is one of, if not the worse thing that can happen to a country.
And this is a system I can get behind. My point (which might be why I've just been called a girl's name) is that acting purely out of self interest with no thought to the plights of others is beneath us (or should be). I gladly give to those in need, though I would not give my whole paycheck. So, I think my caveat of 'let's try 8 million to start, and work from there' would be a fine idea. Because after all, if the US collapses that ain't helping anyone, right?
And yeah, it historically takes 2-3 generations for an immigrant family to actually integrate into our society. All part of the plan, I think.
I don't think any choice is right or wrong, since different conclusions fits better depending on the person.
And I really like this way of looking at things, and have a similar one. I try to avoid the concepts of right and wrong as often as possible, because it so difficult to tell if those morals even exist. Raising has so much to do with it. I try to make decisions involving other people based solely on the net gain of all involved instead of 'who's right.'
Well you should be cautious to make statements like, "which goes against most conservative's morality system". That is an incorrect assumption.
How is that incorrect? A major part of the conservative and neoconservative ideal is upholding the law and reverence fot the legal system.
Illegal aliens use of our social systems have no effect on the level of taxes we pay. But the use of the systems by illegals does in fact decrease resoources that would have otherwise been available to legal citizens, the only ones that should be eligible for it, except in the case of emergency, and even then their governments should pay the bill not the US taxpayer.
So you are saying that there is a limited number of resources in government programs and that if there is a bigger demand then the current supply, the government wouldn't up the supply?
Well you should be cautious to make statements like, "which goes against most conservative's morality system". That is an incorrect assumption.
Can you explain? Everytime I've argued this subject it has also gone to how the illegal immigrants have broken the law so they shouldn't get government help. That goes down to morality nine times out of ten.
I try to avoid the concepts of right and wrong as often as possible, because it so difficult to tell if those morals even exist. Raising has so much to do with it.
I am basically where you are. I am a firm believer that morality is purely subjective and the base of everyone's morality can be found in society. You can find a society that has has embraced almost everything that we consider immoral in western society (cannibalism, slavery, infanticide, pedophilia, etc) besides obvious morals that would be too forced or those that would doom the society.
I try to make decisions involving other people based solely on the net gain of all involved instead of 'who's right.'
Yeah, even though it is nearly impossible to actually follow I try to make big decisions on what is best for society or the people around me in contrast to my own self-interests and find out what is more important and consequences of each.
And yeah, it historically takes 2-3 generations for an immigrant family to actually integrate into our society. All part of the plan, I think.
Again, you are misunderstanding a statistic. "Integrate" in this case refers to language and cultural assimilation. That takes at least 2-3 generations whether the person is a poor migrant fruit picker or a university-trained engineer making $80,000 a year. But the latter isn't a drain on social services, and it's why white-collar immigrants don't have
nearly the hard time as poor immigrants do. Immigration is not that hard at all
if you can prove you have
skills we need.
* To Qualify for the H1B Visa Program, you must work in a 'specialty occupation':
The core Specialty Occupations include: IT, Computing, Finance, Accounting, Banking, Marketing, Advertising, PR, Sales, Recruiting, Engineering (all types), Teaching, HealthCare/Medical, Legal, Lawyers, Networking, Telecoms, Business, Management.
How is that incorrect? A major part of the conservative and neoconservative ideal is upholding the law and reverence fot the legal system.
My point is that the terms "Conservative" and now "Neoconservative" are not well defined. Therefore it is difficult to make generalizations about what one group over another thinks or how they will act.
So you are saying that there is a limited number of resources in government programs and that if there is a bigger demand then the current supply, the government wouldn't up the supply?
Can you explain? Everytime I've argued this subject it has also gone to how the illegal immigrants have broken the law so they shouldn't get government help. That goes down to morality nine times out of ten.
The social programs ingrained in our governmental system. They are funded at certain levels, what ever that may be, long in advance of expenditure. The system gets X dollars and they have to make the program work with those dollars. There are no more. The supply is not "uped" because they have more need, they just do more with less. Everyone suffers because of it. Imagine, and I know this could never happen, if we suddenly removed all illegal’s from the system there would be much more for the legal citizens to have and the system would not be so taxed. Well until Congress found out and then they would just decrease the spending and use the money somewhere else. :D
Immigration laws are not morality based IMHO.
The social programs ingrained in our governmental system. They are funded at certain levels, what ever that may be, long in advance of expenditure. The system gets X dollars and they have to make the program work with those dollars. There are no more. The supply is not "uped" because they have more need, they just do more with less. Everyone suffers because of it. Imagine, and I know this could never happen, if we suddenly removed all illegal’s from the system there would be much more for the legal citizens to have and the system would not be so taxed. Well until Congress found out and then they would just decrease the spending and use the money somewhere else. :D
Ok, that makes more sense.
Immigration laws are not morality based IMHO.
I am not talking about the actual laws, but the fact that illegal immigrants break them. Some people say it is justified, conservatives usually say it isn't justified.
I am not talking about the actual laws, but the fact that illegal immigrants break them. Some people say it is justified, conservatives usually say it isn't justified.
Define conservative in your own words.
Well explain how is it that you believe that "conservatives" think it is a moral issue.
Again, you are misunderstanding a statistic. "Integrate" in this case refers to language and cultural assimilation. That takes at least 2-3 generations whether the person is a poor migrant fruit picker or a university-trained engineer making $80,000 a year. But the latter isn't a drain on social services, and it's why white-collar immigrants don't have nearly the hard time as poor immigrants do. Immigration is not that hard at all if you can prove you have skills we need.
Accepted, now is this fact for or against more accepting immigration laws?
I take conservative as usually low government involvement and tend to holds more traditional viewpoints.
Conservatives don't take it as a moral issue, they usually take one side of the moral issue, which seems to be one part of the immigration situation. Right now, the law says that an immigrant can not just cross a border without registering. Usually conservatives use the argument that they have broken the law,as one of their arguments. The justification of breaking laws comes down to a moral issue? When is it justified to break a law and when is it not? Usually liberals say breaking the law is justified or that we can not just deport them and usually conservatives so that breaking the law is not justified so we these people should be punished or they should not receive the services that legal immigrants get because they broke the law.
Accepted, now is this fact for or against more accepting immigration laws?
Against, for the most part. The people who contribute here and now have a relatively easy time getting in. The people who want to make a better life for themselves have a harder time because A.) there are many, many more of them and B.) they cannot contribute as much or as soon. I think a guest worker program is reasonable, because if there are jobs available then obviously someone is more than welcome to fill that job. But deportation (of those people we already know are not working) is a joke, currently.
I forget which politician was recently touting the idea, but I think doing away with the anchor baby law would go a long way towards solving the problem.
So do you think that the change made to the law should be that if an illegal immigrant has a child we should deport the whole family, child included, meaning the parent must be a citizen in order to gain citizenship? Or do you think we should deport the parents and put the kids up for adoption?
I think a baby that happens to be born within our borders should not automatically be granted citizenship. I think we should deport the parents or not, depending only on the status of the parents, and if they have kids, of course their kids go with them. If the parents gain citizenship, then their minor children should be fast-tracked for citizenship, as foreign spouses of citizens are now.
That's anecdotal. I could easily provide other stories of individuals to support my claim. I was asking for some sort of actual evidence of so many people wanting to come here.
Anecdotal? Someone who's actually delt with the system and knows how expensive and difficult it is and how bad the odds are after going to that expense and bullshit? My point is 10 million (your number) go through all that to try to get here. With no barrier except the cost of transportation, easily 10 times that many would on their way.
And please, calm down the name calling and personal insults. All you do with things like that is make enemies of people who hold no ill will toward you.
Unless you're offering to suck my dick, I have enough friends, thank you.
Bruce, don't make us start a thread about you. :eyebrow:
I forget which politician was recently touting the idea, but I think doing away with the anchor baby law would go a long way towards solving the problem.
Anchor baby law? You must mean the Fourteenth Amendment.
...
Unless you're offering to suck my dick, I have enough friends, thank you.
Bruce, don't make us start a thread about you. :eyebrow:
You beat me to it, Blue. RK has nothing over Bruce, but where are all the detractors?
You beat me to it, Blue. RK has nothing over Bruce, but where are all the detractors?
Start a thread if you feel the need - then they'll surely come out. You know how the crowd mentality works - after a few get things started, a poll will surely follow and it'll be rolling along with a life of its own.
You beat me to it, Blue. RK has nothing over Bruce, but where are all the detractors?
I've got you Spex, so whine away. Let me know when your set up and I'll come pretend I give a hairy rat's ass, just to make you feel good. OK?
Bruce, seriously, what's up lately? You seem more testy than usual...this is how you got before you went AWOL earlier this year. Hope you're alright.
I can claim my tithe in taxes, So this must be the only part subject to tax. I know they can stay at our motel without paying taxes as long as they have a tax exempt form.
Actually Charities pay taxes on donations also. Just not living expense taxes.
The US's immigration system is actually easier to navigate and it is easier to become a citizen of this nation than most nations of the world.
People just don't want to hear this basic truth.
The myth is that it is SO hard to become a citizen of the US, but that is a lie.
Try looking-up how hard it is to become a citizen of Sweden, China, or 95% of other nations and then compare it to the States and suddenly the lies become clear.
Just because more want to become citizens of the US does not equal entitlement.
I don't know where this idea that want=some kind of currency came from, but it is bullshit.
It is harder to become a Mexican citizen than that of the US and their Southern border is ten-times more militantly patrolled and those crossing illegally are treated in ways no one in the US would EVER be treated... but that is "different".
Bull-shit.
Again and again, immigration is a legal issue and ONLY a legal issue and our laws are far more fair than most of the world's, even those of the nation's where people are coming from.
If you come here illegally, you are a criminal and have no right to complain about being treated as one.
it is easier to become a citizen of this nation than most nations of the world.
Just because more want to become citizens of the US does not equal entitlement.
I don't know where this idea that want=some kind of currency came from, but it is bullshit.
It is harder to become a Mexican citizen than that of the US and their Southern border is ten-times more militantly patrolled and those crossing illegally are treated in ways no one in the US would EVER be treated... but that is "different".
Bull-shit.
Again and again, immigration is a legal issue and ONLY a legal issue and our laws are far more fair than most of the world's, even those of the nation's where people are coming from.
If you come here illegally, you are a criminal and have no right to complain about being treated as one.
I agree with the first few parts, but the last part I have to add one caveat to . . . They have no rights - period.
They have no rights - period.
which was also why torture is acceptable, why people can be kidnapped anywhere in the world (extraordinary rendition), why people can be imprisoned for years without judicial review, and why America has suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. This is acceptable in totalitarian societies. Is that acceptable to you? If yes, then how do you justifying denial of rights as provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
I would say they have the rights given to them by their country of origin. Which is totally useless to say, I know, since I imagine it'd be damn hard to correctly determine exactly where each of them came from.
Bruce, seriously, what's up lately? You seem more testy than usual...this is how you got before you went AWOL earlier this year. Hope you're alright.
I'm always "testy" when some asshole doesn't read what I say, and tells me what I really mean or think.
The problem with immigrants coming to this country, is one of the major reasons they come... freedom. Even the ones that come legally, once they are here, they virtually disappear from the feds radar. It's a conundrum the feds, haven't been able to resolve.
I don't understand why an immigrant, convicted of a felony, is so hard to deport.... or why someone that overstays their visa for years, can't be found and deported, while paying taxes every year.
There is a bunch of Nigerians in MA that receive a letter from the feds, every year, telling them their student visa expired X years ago and they must leave the country. They don't respond and the feds do nothing.
The illegal 17 year old Mexican that hit my car and ran, with no drivers license or insurance, is still here. He was in jail and the feds couldn't find him?
The Supreme court decided that anyone landed, has full rights and privileges of a citizen. I understand that keeps immigrants from being discriminated against, at least in theory. But, I'd be more comfortable if the feds at least knew where they are, until they become citizens.
which was also why torture is acceptable, why people can be kidnapped anywhere in the world (extraordinary rendition), why people can be imprisoned for years without judicial review, and why America has suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. This is acceptable in totalitarian societies. Is that acceptable to you? If yes, then how do you justifying denial of rights as provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
To me it is very simple - Come here legally or don't come here at all. If you come here illegally then you are a criminal - can't you grasp that basic concept? No? OH thats right - you are
the mental midgit.
[rant] You were repeatedly challenged and asked to respond in the Stock Market thread where you, tw, has been proven wrong and refuses to be a man and respond accordingly. You are so pathetic that you make posts in several other threads and yet conveniently for you, you avoided that particular one. Why is that? You don't even have the balls to admit when you are wrong and then make assumptions, incorrect ones at that, and respond to them with irrelovencies - as usual. You are a one trick pony with a mind like a steel trap caught out in the rain - rusted shut! You made all kinds of denials and statements, yet when challenged you don't even have enough balls to respond, not only to me, but other posters as well.[end rant]
I've got you Spex,
You've got me? What do you mean?
.... Let me know when your set up...
Let you know when my set up? Pllease explain.
This is my favorite show! The tw/yesman Show....starrrrrring: tw and yesman!
:corn:
You've got me? What do you mean?
My very own personal detractor.
Let you know when my set up? Pllease explain.
Your thread to beat me up.
My very own personal detractor.
I just call 'em like I see 'em. And I don't like the inequity of two people behaving the same way, and only one of them getting shit for it.
Your thread to beat me up
That's not my style. Maybe LJ will do that - D'oh, I don't see that happening.
I don't understand why an immigrant, convicted of a felony, is so hard to deport.... or why someone that overstays their visa for years, can't be found and deported, while paying taxes every year.
There is a bunch of Nigerians in MA that receive a letter from the feds, every year, telling them their student visa expired X years ago and they must leave the country. They don't respond and the feds do nothing.
The illegal 17 year old Mexican that hit my car and ran, with no drivers license or insurance, is still here. He was in jail and the feds couldn't find him?
These problems could all be solved by deporting every illegal alien and spending more time and money on hunting down the ones we can't find. However, it would be a kinder solution to simply give them citizenship. All the sudden they're no harder or easier to track than you or me.
To me it is very simple - Come here legally or don't come here at all. If you come here illegally then you are a criminal - can't you grasp that basic concept? No? OH thats right - you are the mental midgit.
I speed, I've done illegal drugs, I've sold illegal drugs, I drank underage, etc. Who here hasn't broken laws? I can't imagine it's been very exciting for anyone who's never gone over the speed limit. Why is crossing the border illegally so much more heinous than anything I've done?
I don't buy the concept that this is 'only a legal argument' because what I'm trying to get at is the law is stupid. If the law is stupid, it's stupid to punish people for it. Punishment for it's own sake is likewise a stupid concept.
Regardless, what this all boils down to is that I am entitled to live here because I was born here, and you are NOT entitled to live here because you were born elsewhere. I can't buy it, it's too nasty. So, if you believe entitlement by birth is an OK thing for us to have, then that core belief makes us so different that there's not much common ground to argue from, eh?
And bruce, I'm sorry I pissed you off.
If we all get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey, what's the point in having laws? If we feel strongly enough that a law is bad, there are processes to get it changed.
(That's not to say that I don't break the speed limit, etc., but if I get caught, I know that I'm responsible, and I suffer the consequences.)
If we all get to pick and choose which laws we want to obey, what's the point in having laws? If we feel strongly enough that a law is bad, there are processes to get it changed.
(That's not to say that I don't break the speed limit, etc., but if I get caught, I know that I'm responsible, and I suffer the consequences.)
I agree to an extent, and I accept the risk of being caught every time I speed. Some laws, though, don't make any sense but not enough people have the desire to change them (mostly because it doesn't affect them, and if it's not my problem why do I care?). I guess it comes from the perversity of my nature, but if I don't agree with the law, I don't have any problem with someone breaking it.
This of course, doesn't mean I take any chances with it (anymore at least!). I don't break laws with severe consequences anymore just because I don't want to deal with the punishment. That's a major reason I will likely leave the country as soon as I can - to find some place more akin to me.
Nice name, btw.
However, it would be a kinder solution to simply give them citizenship. All the sudden they're no harder or easier to track than you or me.
And so you have defined why we have a problem. For example, EE Times of 27 Aug 2007 describes even a reverse brain drain because our draconian laws are based in the mindset you see in Yesman065's post; a solution that ignores the problem.
By the end of fiscal year 2006, half a million foreign nationals living in the States were waiting in line of employment-based green cards ... If spouses and offspring are included in the tally, the number exceeds 1 million. ...
The number of available green cards in the three categories totals approximately 120,000. "If there are over a million persons in line for 120,000 visas a year, then we have already mortgaged almost nine year's worth of employment visas" ...
The series then continues to explain how desperate America is for these illegal workers in high tech jobs.
Research released Wednesday shows that foreign nationals were listed as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of patent applications in the US ... The US government is among those that benefit from foreign nationals' brainpower. Some 41 percent of its patent applications list foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.
The report uses examples to demonstrate people who want to start businesses in America and cannot for 4 or up to 13 years. So they leave.
US companies bring in many highly skilled foreigners on temporary visas and train them in US business practices. ... Those workers are then forced to leave, and "they become our competitors. That is how stupid as it gets"
... a senior strategic projects manager who has an engineer background and is working for a Fortune 100 company has been waiting 13 years for his green card, Arumbakkam said.
That manager, also Indian, applied for permanent residency in Canada at the same time he applied for it in the States. After 18 months, Canada offered it to him and his family. His wife and children moved to Vancouver BC
Notice how some blindly see unenforced laws as the problem. They don't even see why the laws are not enforceable. They just know enforcement - classic 'big dic' thinking - will solve everything.
We need 1.8 million immigrants to harvest the crops. We offer only 29,000 visas. So we should enforce laws upon those other 1,710,000 workers only because only those laws are righteous? We even ignore the purpose of those laws? No wonder Martin Luther King was so evil. Meanwhile look at the numbers even for workers that America most desperately needs. Millions are needed. Only 0.12 million visas are available.
America even created 2 million Iraqi refugees. We only permitted a few hundred to come to America. The laws are never wrong. It must be all those evil Iraqis. Laws do not create problems? Well, yes. Problem are the foolish who support those laws; who ignore
the problem - those laws.
They are here illegally because we need them, because they need the work, and because so many want to enforce laws that are not enforceable. Since we are into enforcing stupid laws, then bring back prohibition. Notice all the drunk drivers who would not longer exist if we just enforce that law also.
I wonder if they go to churches who don't get taxed?
I wonder if they go to churches who don't get taxed?
Isn't that the best place to hide from the law?
Nope, no reason not to go get them in there.
I just call 'em like I see 'em. And I don't like the inequity of two people behaving the same way, and only one of them getting shit for it.
That's not my style. Maybe LJ will do that - D'oh, I don't see that happening.
I will determine who i make threads about, Nancy. And if i do it, it won't be veiled in some stupid assed question that a 7 year old could see through.
I wonder if they go to churches who don't get taxed?
Good point, I can't help but feel this meandering is somehow my fault...
ThreadHijackman would be impressed.
They are here illegally because we need them, because they need the work, and because so many want to enforce laws that are not enforceable. Since we are into enforcing stupid laws, then bring back prohibition. Notice all the drunk drivers who would not longer exist if we just enforce that law also.
If the law is stupid, change it, don't ignore it.
Looks like this thread has drifted.
The thing is, you can argue day and night, but in the end legality will always win when the situation must be resolved. Actually, so much of our law is based on common law (precedents), that not enforcing a law in one scenario has an enormous impact on its ability to be enforced in other areas. Law is logic, if I can make the argument and connect the dots, I win. If I have a very wealthy client who wants to skirt the law and there is a precedent of non-enforcement that I can tie to him in any way, then your original law may as well not even be there. Think carefully.
If the law is stupid, change it, don't ignore it.
Some laws make sense in some situations and don't in others.
For example, there is a difference between an 18 year old drinking responsibly and an 18 year old passed out in bathtub after waking up all of his or her neighbors at 3 in the morning, vandalizing their homes, and peeing on their lawn. Just like there is a difference between going 20 over on a country road and going 20 over on a city road. There will be times when the same law will make sense and a time when it doesn't and that is why we have courts, kinda.
Some laws are very hard to change like legalizing drug as well and are easier just to ignore it.
Looks like this thread has drifted.
DOESN'T THAT LOOK APPEALING RIGHT NOW!!?!?!?
Some laws make sense in some situations and don't in others.
For example, there is a difference between an 18 year old drinking responsibly and an 18 year old passed out in bathtub after waking up all of his or her neighbors at 3 in the morning, vandalizing their homes, and peeing on their lawn. Just like there is a difference between going 20 over on a country road and going 20 over on a city road. There will be times when the same law will make sense and a time when it doesn't and that is why we have courts, kinda.
Some laws are very hard to change like legalizing drug as well and are easier just to ignore it.
In that case, their age is not the issue.
Some laws make sense in some situations and don't in others.
This still does not explain why sanctuary inside a tax free church is not good protection from enforcement of stupid laws. Even the alter boys nip at the sacrifical wine and don't get prosecuted.
Separation of church and state requires the state not recognize the Church as sanctuary... and it never has.
In that case, their age is not the issue.
Yeah, but the law was created because the people that made the law said that 18 year olds, or at least the majority of them, are not mature enough to drink responsibly so they raised the drinking age. So the contradiction of punishing an 18 year old for responsible drinking when the law was made because of irresponsible drinking will come up.
Actually, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act did not specifically ban the consumption alcohol by minors, only the purchasing of it. Different states modified it, some to include consumption. The bill would never have gone through at all of course without huge campaigns by MADD, and it really does little to nothing to curb the efforts of stupid teenagers to damage themselves. Big hoopla for the nanny state is all it is.
These problems could all be solved by deporting every illegal alien and spending more time and money on hunting down the ones we can't find. However, it would be a kinder solution to simply give them citizenship. All the sudden they're no harder or easier to track than you or me.
Is that fair to the people that play by the rules? Does that teach them to respect the laws or just encourage them to flaunt more laws that are inconvenient for them? Doesn't that just encourage more to come illegally demanding the same treatment? I know the answer, yes it does, but that's what you want. Well I don't, because I'm not leaving the country.
I speed, I've done illegal drugs, I've sold illegal drugs, I drank underage, etc. Who here hasn't broken laws? I can't imagine it's been very exciting for anyone who's never gone over the speed limit. Why is crossing the border illegally so much more heinous than anything I've done?
I can see why you don't expect them to respect the law, you don't.
I don't buy the concept that this is 'only a legal argument' because what I'm trying to get at is the law is stupid. If the law is stupid, it's stupid to punish people for it. Punishment for it's own sake is likewise a stupid concept.
The law is not stupid. It's a good law, better than most countries have. If the quotas are outdated, then update them to reflect the times, don't just ignore the protections the law provides.
Regardless, what this all boils down to is that I am entitled to live here because I was born here, and you are NOT entitled to live here because you were born elsewhere. I can't buy it, it's too nasty. So, if you believe entitlement by birth is an OK thing for us to have, then that core belief makes us so different that there's not much common ground to argue from, eh?
Nasty? More people are immigrating into the US than anywhere else in the world and we're nasty? Give me a break.
And bruce, I'm sorry I pissed you off.
Why? What difference does it make to you or me? I holler, don't brood.
Yeah, but the law was created because the people that made the law said that 18 year olds, or at least the majority of them, are not mature enough to drink responsibly so they raised the drinking age. So the contradiction of punishing an 18 year old for responsible drinking when the law was made because of irresponsible drinking will come up.
Then everything else needs to be raised, taxes, military service, property rights,
all of it.
It was a punk-ass-move.
They are mature enough to buy a house, die for their country, pay taxes, be tried as an adult but not buy a beer. Only an idiot thinks such a thing.
Either they are too immature for all of it or none.
It was feel-good-politics just like gay laws, not taxing churches and the garden club and most other bull-shit politicians spend our money on.
Nasty? More people are immigrating into the US than anywhere else in the world and we're nasty?
So you don't have any problem with giving two people different rights based on where they were born? You don't think there's something twisted about that? People come here because we're obscenely rich, and they want to be rich, too. I don't think that means we are morally superior at all. That's where my stance on the whole issue is coming from, and why I'd still be for inclusive immigration laws even if it
were 'bad for the economy,' because frankly it reeks of royalty to claim a right to citizenship based solely on birth.
Why? What difference does it make to you or me? I holler, don't brood.
Well it does make a difference to
you if you're actually pissed, right? I'm not saying I've spent the last two days pacing and worrying about a person I just met (not even in 'real life') being angry, but I would be happier if you weren't pissed off. Also, if you didn't call me Polyanna:mad:. My name is already a slightly misspelled girls name as it is.
Most Americans are not extremely rich, they make enough to live comfortably but not in the lap of luxury. It's our stability and open class system (ability to climb the social and economic ladders) that draws people here I think. Isn't the most common thing to hear from illegal aliens "I wanted to make a better life for myself and my family"? Not, "I want in on all those piles of cash!".
Birth does a hell of alot to determine who we are, we are born into our culture. Some people are born to very wealthy parents and often enjoy lives of greater privilege then the rest of us. How far are you willing to go to put an end to that? And are you willing to damage and destroy the efforts of millions of people here who have done absolutely nothing wrong in order to enforce your own view of global equality? I'm willing to help people, but I also retain the right to choose how I do it, and what I'm willing to sacrifice in the process. If you want to override the will of the citizenry in order to impose your own morality, I suggest you find a different country to target. That's not the way things work here.
Most Americans are not extremely rich, they make enough to live comfortably but not in the lap of luxury.
Rich is relative my friend. Tell your average Iraqi, Sudani, Chadian, Pakistani, Yugoslavian that I am not rich. By American standards I'm middle class at best. I make multitudes more than the average middle class person in those countries. I have a television, an X-Box, a car, a truck, a motorcycle, I can go out a few times a month for dinner and drinks, My clothes are all new (relatively!:p). I never ever ever have to worry about what I'm going to eat, and all but the tiniest fraction of Americans are in my boat.
Some people are born to very wealthy parents and often enjoy lives of greater privilege then the rest of us. How far are you willing to go to put an end to that?
I know not everyone is interested in it, not everyone finds as big an issue with this kind of right by birth. Me? I'm willing to go pretty far. As I've already stated I'd pay upwards of 50-60 percent of my income in taxes if everyone got healthcare, free education... everything available in a capitalist socialism setting. I can not abide that some people who work HARDER than me get less, just because I had parents who could pay my first year of classes and buy books later. I've never truly been on my own before, I've always had parents who I could fall back on if times get hard. If your parents live around the poverty level, what the hell are they going to do?? Nothing, you run out of money, drop out of college, and get a job at Denny's.
If you want to override the will of the citizenry in order to impose your own morality, I suggest you find a different country to target. That's not the way things work here.
What the bloody hell are you talking about!?:whofart: I'm talking about what I think is the correct way to go about things. I never said I was going to try some military coup so I can enforce my hippie-commie-pinko views on the citizens of the US, or even that someone should. If I believed that, I'd most certainly be in a different line of work. I'm explaining WHY it is that I would vote for an immigration system like this, and WHY it is that we SHOULD. If everyone who posted their views on this or any forum stood accused of 'trying to impose their own morality'... well, hell. I guess we'd all be a bunch of enemies to the state.
Social mobility is actually lower in the US than in other 1st world countries because their education is much better for the lower class than ours. High School in general is shitty in the US. (See teacher thread)
I never ever ever have to worry about what I'm going to eat, and all but the tiniest fraction of Americans are in my boat.
Hmm, I wonder why that is?
As I've already stated I'd pay upwards of 50-60 percent of my income in taxes if everyone got healthcare, free education... everything available in a capitalist socialism setting.
Good for you - nobody is stopping you from donating or giving all you want to whatever charity you want.
I've never truly been on my own before, I've always had parents who I could fall back on if times get hard.
Ahhh, very telling indeed.
I never ever ever have to worry about what I'm going to eat, and all but the tiniest fraction of Americans are in my boat.
You're gonna need a bigger boat...
You're going to need a bigger boat, right? How are we going to handle this?
Being selective about who we allow to be Americans is our right and fair, especially since our immigration laws are more liberal and easy than most nations even the ones most immigrants are coming from.
Just because more people want to come here than most nations does NOT mean that we should let more in.
That is a silly notion.
"We have a better life than they do".
That does not mean we have an obligation to give it to them. Not in the slightest.
Want to be an American... come here legally and you will be.
It IS that simple.
Being selective about who we allow to be Americans is our right and fair, especially since our immigration laws are more liberal and easy than most nations even the ones most immigrants are coming from.
So, it's fair that we keep our immigrations laws difficult, because other countries have more difficult immigration laws? Following that, um, logic, it would also be fair if we made our immigration laws easier, because there are countries with easier immigration laws than ours.
Just because more people want to come here than most nations does NOT mean that we should let more in.
That is a silly notion.
WHY is it a silly notion?
Want to be an American... come here legally and you will be.
It IS that simple.
You're completely ignoring the fact that it is too often NOT a simple thing to come here legally in the first place.
Again and again, our immigration laws are easier than MOST nations. They are not that hard.
It is harder to become a citizen of most nations including most of the nations people are coming from than the US.
I think our laws are fair.
It is a silly notion because it is not logical.
What people want has nothing to do with what it right for all and what is right for what we need to consider first, what is best for our nation.
No immigration process is simple, but ours is easier than most and not unfair.
Letting everyone who wants to come here is not an option.
Rob favors being a dick to other people, because we have no obligation to let them in, whereas some of us, me included, favor being nice to people by letting them in... within reason, obviously.
well, okay, thats an oversimplification, but thats the core of the matter.
And sorry I called you a dick, buddy, but you really are one, 'specially lately.
@queequeger. Do your parents share your views, either partially or completely?
whereas some of us, me included, favor being nice to people by letting them in... within reason, obviously.
Cite where I stated that we should not let people in within reason.
Again and again, our immigration laws are easier than MOST nations. They are not that hard.
It is harder to become a citizen of most nations including most of the nations people are coming from than the US.
I think our laws are fair.
It is a silly notion because it is not logical.
What people want has nothing to do with what it right for all and what is right for what we need to consider first, what is best for our nation.
No immigration process is simple, but ours is easier than most and not unfair.
Letting everyone who wants to come here is not an option.
If you think waiting 10 years = not that hard, you're obviously not dealing with reality.
Why should other countries' immigration laws have any real bearing on how we make our immigration laws. And how can our laws be fair, when they don't work.
You can label the situation 'silly' or 'not logical,' but it still doesn't give an explanation. Explain WHY it's not logical.
Our nation is made up of PEOPLE, people with different wants and needs. What is best for our nation can be as varied as those different wants and needs.
Cite where I stated that we should not let people in within reason.
The difference is, you favor exclusion, while I favor inclusion. You favor keeping people out, except for the ones we let in. I favor letting people in, except for the ones we keep out.
I don't know how this thread shifted to immigration, but...
Do people really want population growth, and all the things that come with that? More traffic, more crowding, more visitors (and hence more damage) to national forests, parks, monuments, etc., more resource consumption, more pollution, more crime, ...
I would prefer negative population growth, both in the US and in the rest of the world.
What is the advantage to increasing the population?
Oh yes, you did imply that, rk.
Being selective about who we allow to be Americans is our right and fair
Just because more people want to come here than most nations does NOT mean that we should let more in.
The difference is, you favor exclusion, while I favor inclusion. You favor keeping people out, except for the ones we let in. I favor letting people in, except for the ones we keep out.
You've just summed up my attitude to immigration.
What is the advantage to increasing the population?
Well as long as it also means your population is getting younger (which is often the case with immigration) it helps offset the 'pension timebomb' by having a large population of working age people paying taxes to enable the country to maintain social security for those who are past working age.
The difference is, you favor exclusion, while I favor inclusion. You favor keeping people out, except for the ones we let in. I favor letting people in, except for the ones we keep out.
You have summed up my attitude as well. One additional caveat is that I include the entire planet when I think about 'us.' I'd like to do what's best for 'us,' not just the US. Get it? Pun!
And calm down about the parents comment. I've lived and worked on my own for many years now, and done pretty well for myself. The comment I made was to point out that the reason I have what I have is based largely on where and to whom I was born. Well, actually it's just to whom, I was born out of country.
Do your parents share your views, either partially or completely?
I'm wondering what you're getting at, but for the most part I have similar views as my parents, yes. I think the only thing I can think of is pops is in favor of limiting hate speech whereas I am not. I'm sure there are others. Why?
Just wondering where you came up with your views.
Yeah, I only think this way because of my parents. Otherwise I'd probably vote republican. Stay the course and all that!
Buy American.
Oh yes, you did imply that, rk.
You have no idea what you are talking about, much of my family are legal immigrants, the closest thing to a grandmother on my mother's side, many uncles and aunts (my favorite aunt), many close friends (several who were in my wedding party) are legal immigrants. I have helped two become citizens.
I love this nation and what it means to be an American, which is often to be an immigrant but it ALWAYS means to be a member of a nation of laws.
There are reasons some cannot become a citizen, you don't seem to give a shit about that.
I don't want felons or violent politicos to become citizens and they should not, so we exclude them. Good.
I don't want criminals to become citizens, so when someone comes here illegally (a criminal) we exclude them. Good.
If they cannot become a productive member of this society in any way, we exclude them. Good.
There is nothing wrong with any of those things.
I do not want exclusion for this nation, I want inclusion, but by a system of laws and not unfair or laws that are out of step with the rest of the world.
As it is ours are more fair and more easily navigated than 95% of other nations, and I do not complain about that... what I do complain about are those that seem to think that we are evil for not just opening this nation to anyone and everyone. "Free USA, free everything everyone else here has worked for for generations to all who come no matter what you are going to do once you get her or what you have done prior".
It is a joke.
In no way does either of those statements imply that I want to exclude immigrants. I want fair legal immigration. Only that.
"Free USA, free everything everyone else here has worked for for generations."
Each person can only work for one lifetime. The point is, that I shouldn't get the benefit of my father's good fortune when someone else gets the negatives from their father's legacy. Frankly, it doesn't matter, or I guess I should say it
shouldn't matter what your successors do either way. Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?
sounds more like socialism
Each person can only work for one lifetime. The point is, that I shouldn't get the benefit of my father's good fortune when someone else gets the negatives from their father's legacy. Frankly, it doesn't matter, or I guess I should say it shouldn't matter what your successors do either way. Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?
Nope. I don't think that at all.
I think socialism and communism are the stupidest ideas ever put forth in the last 500 years.
There is no such thing as fair.
If someone was born in a shit-hole somewhere halfway around the world he/she does
not have an inalienable right to be a US citizen.
Yes, I have a right to leave what is mine to my kids.
But the do have the opportunity to try and come here LEGALLY - hopefully to do their part to make this country better,
Yup, they have the right to apply to come here legally, same as everyone else.
Not the same as being born with the right to BE a citizen.
We have no obligation to let people in, yet you berate us for acting in our country's best interest. Quasi-moral, glass-half-empty-half-full criticisms of immigration policy do little good except increase your post count. The really substantial piece of information is WHY you favor this or that policy, and hopefully there is something more convincing then a general feeling of goodwill towards man.
When it comes down to it, the people who vote with vague notions are the onces who go for the politicians who are all bark and no bite.
Everything you've said has implied that.
Letting everyone who wants to come here is not an option.
"We have a better life than they do".
That does not mean we have an obligation to give it to them. Not in the slightest.
Just because more people want to come here than most nations does NOT mean that we should let more in.
That is a silly notion.
Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?
No, is absolutely, positively not. The founding philosophy is that nobody is given anything, and nobody has anything taken away, by the damn government.
Everything you've said has implied that.
Nope, I favor legal inclusion and have stated so multiple times. You are misquoting me out of context.
We have no obligation to let people in, yet you berate us for acting in our country's best interest. Quasi-moral, glass-half-empty-half-full criticisms of immigration policy do little good except increase your post count. The really substantial piece of information is WHY you favor this or that policy, and hopefully there is something more convincing then a general feeling of goodwill towards man.
When it comes down to it, the people who vote with vague notions are the onces who go for the politicians who are all bark and no bite.
Yeah, what? Is there something more convincing than a general feeling of goodwill toward man? My whole argument is that we should help non-citizens
even at cost to ourselves, so yeah, that's my whole argument.
I'm also
deathly curious about your 'glass half empty half full' comment. Please explain what that means. Also, how my criticisms are actually 'Quasi moral' instead of just 'my morals.'
Each person should be given the same opportunities, regardless of birth. Isn't that a founding philosophy of the US?
Yeah, I quoted myself. What? :p
It does sound more like socialism. It also sounds like the intent that was put forward in the declaration of independence...
But, thinking about it, these notes will receive the same arguments as all the others. The simple difference between me and those who disagree with me seems to be that your 'us group' is defined by your country and mine is defined by my species. We could get into
that difference but it seems to me that we'll continue to disagree based on our personalities.
My belief is that a human is more important than a countryman, and yours ('yours' being those who've disagreed about my immigration philosophy) is a countryman more important than a human. Sounds like an irreconcilable difference?
I want fair legal immigration. Only that.
There is no such thing as fair.
My belief is that a human is more important than a countryman, and yours ('yours' being those who've disagreed about my immigration philosophy) is a countryman more important than a human. Sounds like an irreconcilable difference?
But there are many countries that do operate on this principle. Has it never occurred to you to wonder why our country is successful and theirs are not? Why people clamor to immigrate to our country and not many of the others?
Which countries are you talking about? It's also really important to define what you mean by successful, because it's not about (IMHO) making as much money as you can. I think a happy, healthy, educated populace is far more important than a rich one.
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
I want fair legal immigration. Only that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
There is no such thing as fair.
The first quote is in reference to laws and ours are fair. The second was in reference to general situations and, though you obviously can't, most can read the whole context for themselves
True queeq, every socialist/communist nation out there has to keep their people prisoner. How great their nations are!
True queeq, every socialist/communist nation out there has to keep their people prisoner. How great their nations are!
Yeah we should get some political movement to free the people of Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, et al. How can we let these horrible social democracies just lock up their people!
Listen to the plight of the Nords! This affront to free societies can not stand!
You aren't serious are you??? Are you comparing those countries to the US??? C'mon.
No, he want's to bring the US down to their level. He's more than happy to give away my money and my country so we aren't being mean.
Yeah, what? Is there something more convincing than a general feeling of goodwill toward man? My whole argument is that we should help non-citizens even at cost to ourselves, so yeah, that's my whole argument.
Yes, there is. Arguments based on the social progression of the last 100 years, economic and political data, comparisons of similar movements in other countries and the eventual results. In short, I'm looking to see something with weight and substance rather then vague and far-reaching opinions. Everyone has opinions, but none are worth anything unless the underlying reasons for them are logical. I'm not saying goodwill is stupid or harmfull, I'm saying it's not enough to bring to a discussion about domestic policy.
I've been clashing with you on this because I've been reading your posts and thinking "alright...but what comes next?...why?". I'm prying for how you generate your opinion, which is always more interesting then just the opinion alone.
I'm also deathly curious about your 'glass half empty half full' comment. Please explain what that means. Also, how my criticisms are actually 'Quasi moral' instead of just 'my morals.'
That comment was referring to the comments on 'letting people in, except for the ones we keep out' and 'keeping people out except for the ones we let in'. Because there are only two possible decisions regarding an immigrant (let him in or keep him out), the statement by itself is strange. I know the difference is that middle section of neither useful, nor harmful people.
I was actually throwing you a bone with the quasi-moral bit, since "I think it's wrong" without additional information to explain
why is meaningless. I'm assuming your attitude is based on some sort of experience or fact, hence the inclusion of both moral attitude and information.
No, he want's to bring the US down to their level.
He wants to
bring the US down to the level of Scandinavia, Norway, Denmark et al? Those are good places to live.
And yet in recent years, places like
Denmark and
Norway have been clamping down on previously loose immigration policies. Huh.
He wants to bring the US down to the level of Scandinavia, Norway, Denmark et al? Those are good places to live.
Not for people that break the law... any law. Strict regimentation.... think ant colony.... is mandatory. Those
$100,000 speeding tickets, are a bitch.
Fines are proportionate to the offender's income: if you have vast wealth you gt fined more. Most people wouldn't get fined that much :P
The first quote is in reference to laws and ours are fair. The second was in reference to general situations and, though you obviously can't, most can read the whole context for themselves
This was divinely inspired… LOL!!!
Theological doctrines:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12
18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31
19. God tempts men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
God tempts no man
James 1:13
20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20
God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28
23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7
(and that's only page one of three of those)
Fines are proportionate to the offender's income: if you have vast wealth you gt fined more. Most people wouldn't get fined that much :P
I know that. So you feel 14 days income is proper for driving at 47 mph in a 31 mph zone? Sounds pretty severe to me. I believe that's gross, not net, income.
What was the point of quoting me off-topic from the other thread Ibram?
I know that. So you feel 14 days income is proper for driving at 47 mph in a 31 mph zone? Sounds pretty severe to me. I believe that's gross, not net, income.
So I can pay my fine with pre-tax dollars?
What was the point of quoting me off-topic from the other thread Ibram?
I think it was a reverence to context.
I know that. So you feel 14 days income is proper for driving at 47 mph in a 31 mph zone? Sounds pretty severe to me. I believe that's gross, not net, income.
Why should poorer people have to suffer more when they speed? That is to say that if the speeding fine is the same, then obviously it impacts the lower earners more so perhaps they learn more of a lesson because they're forced to give up a larger (by comparison) chunk of their income to pay the fine.
I had no idea they did this sort of thing, but i think it's a great idea personally.
$150 to someone who only earns $450 per week is a lot more than $150 to someone who earns $4500 per week.
It's still disproportionate punishment though, care to try that logic in areas of justice other then traffic fines?
I think some speeding fines are too high, however, if someone cannot afford a fine, no matter what the crime the fine is for should the court just say "oh, they can't afford it... well, ok, let them off then". No.
The old saying still applies.
"Can't do the time/fine, don't do the crime".
I really dislike the attitude that people have that speeding is not really a crime.
You can't use this technique on other areas of punishment, it can only be used on monetary punishments.
And it isn't disproportionate, it just isn't a set rate. It does make things more complicated but if you do want to break down a classist system, this is one way of doing it and that is obviously one of their priorities.
I really don't see how this is such a bad idea. Besides the whole rewards of being rich part, it gives people that break the law that happen to be rich something bigger than a slap on the wrist. If you make a million dollars a year, it is much easier just to take fines than it is to actually follow the law.
It's still disproportionate punishment though, care to try that logic in areas of justice other then traffic fines?
Traffic fines are slightly different to most areas of justice.
Why is it disproportionate?
Besides the whole rewards of being rich part
What does that mean?
You think people should be punished just for being rich alone?
It seems like you think it is self-explanatory, it is not.
Surely you can figure it out rkz. If you're wealthy, you can generally buy most material objects and items without having to worry about the bills. That is one reward of being rich that I can think of.
It does make things more complicated but if you do want to break down a classist system,
I'm really curious as to what you mean by this.... I think my answer to it is probably, no I don't, if it means what I think it does.
Surely you can figure it out rkz. If you're wealthy, you can generally buy most material objects and items without having to worry about the bills. That is one reward of being rich that I can think of.
Right, so does that mean he wants to set up a whole different set of punishments for people with money?
No, just fine them proportionately to their income. The same as a sliding tax scale which if my memory serves me correctly, you're opposed to also.
What does that mean?
You think people should be punished just for being rich alone?
It seems like you think it is self-explanatory, it is not.
The previous argument for the speeding ticket prices was that it evened out the playing field for all income levels so the rich were penalized proportionally the same as the poor. Some people say it is an advantage of being rich that should be there to be proportionality penalized less and some people think that it shouldn't be there. I said besides that point so that means I didn't place my opinion on that matter so no, I don't think people should be punished for being rich alone.
I'm really curious as to what you mean by this.... I think my answer to it is probably, no I don't, if it means what I think it does.
The system of a flat rate is naturally classist. A speeding ticket for a poor person can screw up their entire balance while it doesn't even leave a dent for a rich person. Some people and countries want to break down that naturally classist system and this is one way of doing this. Once again, I placed no personal opinion on that particular statement.
It's really the practice of adjusting punishment according to a person's tolerance for it. You say a rich person can tolerate a fine more easily then someone on a lower income and that's true. But I don't like the idea of the courts telling me "we've decided that you can stand more punishment then we usually give out, so we're going to increase our sentence". It's just easier with money, doesn't make it just.
So maybe giving people fines isn't the best way then since it seems one person will be 'punished' more than another no matter which way you go.
I think it was a reverence to context.
Reverence, yes.
No, just fine them proportionately to their income. The same as a sliding tax scale which if my memory serves me correctly, you're opposed to also.
I'm not questioning the country's choice of a percentage fine being fair. However, I think 14 days gross pay, that's almost three weeks, for that offense, is very severe.... draconian, even.
I agree with the idea of proportionate fines. I also agree with Bruce that 14 days pay is an over harsh fine.
In the UK I think a speeding ticket is between £60 and £100. Which is less than half a week's wage for the average earner. You also get points on your licence, I think it's three points for speeding. I'm not sure how long the points stay on, something like a year or two. If you go over 12 points on your licence your licence is revoked (for a period of time, I think about a year).
Yep. two weeks is pretty harsh...unless you're going very very fast I suppose.
For what speeding offense is 14 days pay for? Like were they going 20 over on a country road or 50 over on a city road in a school zone?
I agree that 14 days pay is way too much for almost every situation but there should be variations of fines on how much faster you are going and where you are speeding. The only way I can see that being justified if they were doing something really stupid and seriously putting other people in danger, then I find it to be a completely fair punishment.
No, he want's to bring the US down to their level. He's more than happy to give away my money and my country so we aren't being mean.
Hahahahahahaha!!!! :lol:
Dana, Aliantha, how does it feel living in squalor and without freedoms? You guys must really hate sitting on the other side of the pond reading our free, amazing,
american comments and thinking 'Oh, please! Please let me come in, it's so horrible over here!'
Anyone else from outside the US, do you guys have little meetings where you gush over living in the states? I mean, I'm sure you're all desperately in love with us, but is it public? I mean the reason there aren't "We Love the US" rallies all over the news all the time is because your oppressive governments don't allow peaceful assembly, right? I'd love to let you in, but :sorry: my economy couldn't take it.
There you go again. Saying I said things I clearly didn't. Stop it.
queerqueger, If it was so great everyehere else or sucks so bad to be here, why do so many people want to be here? Better yet, if its so great everywhere else why don't YOU go there? We let lots of people leave. Why is they are not flocking to get outta here?
I am,
actually.
How can you guys not see how ridiculous comments like that are? The rest of the world doesn't want to live here, some people do. And countries in every corner of the globe have many immigrants. To say that immigration means we're BETTER than everyone else is absurd, and frankly it's bordering on jingoism. We're not a BAD country, I would never go that far. There are things I absolutely love about the US and that I will miss, but to think we're so much better than everyone else that comparison is out of the question... well it's just a little weird.
Just who the fuck said we were better than everyone else?
No, he want's to bring the US down to their level.
That kind of hints at it.
It's still disproportionate punishment though, care to try that logic in areas of justice other then traffic fines?
Sure. Any sort of fine. No reason to restrict it to traffic.
And it isn't disproportionate, it's just more proportionate than you're used to.
I am, actually.
Last I checked there buddy Hawaii is still part of the US.
The rest of the world doesn't want to live here, some people do. To say that immigration means we're BETTER than everyone else is absurd, and frankly it's bordering on jingoism. We're not a BAD country, I would never go that far.
Um, lemme think here - If other people WANT to come here so fucking bad that they break the law, then we must be at least a LITTLE better than where ever they are comin from.
Geez and I'm so relieved that "we aren't a BAD country" in your view - Whew I feel so much better. Thanks.
Even a progressive tax system unequalizes a population if you really think about it. Let's use Joe Average as an example. He and his wife make a total of $47k annually, which would put them in the second tax bracket at 15%. To simplify lets just say their tax contribution is 47000*0.15=$7050 every year. His highschool buddy Harry Surgeon is making $600k, putting him in the highest bracket of 35%. Harry is sending off 600000*0.35=$210000 a year to Uncle Sam, that's about 30x more then Joe. Now enter Fred CEO, he's raking in a comfortable $2.7M off his firm, and is of course also in the highest bracket. That's (2.7*10^6)*0.35=$945000 in cash for our boys in Washington, almost a full 135x more then Joe. Without a stepped system those numbers would of course still be high, but only ~12.5x and 57.5x respectively. It exacerbates the problem of unequal government because certain classes of people are worth the equivalent of hundreds of their fellow citizens. While I'm certainly not claiming that doing away with tiered systems would solve this, it's still a big part of why certain interests are paid attention to immediately while others languish for years.
Where do the deductions fit into your model?
Um, lemme think here - If other people WANT to come here so fucking bad that they break the law, then we must be at least a LITTLE better than where ever they are comin from.
Oh please, you know that they would never come here if they had no other choice. Living as an illegal here is a little better than living in extreme poverty in Mexico. That really isn't a tough standard to beat. You can't say you are the best chef because I prefer your food over shit.
Last I checked there buddy Hawaii is still part of the US.
Read the rest of the post, man.
My Maserati
Does one eighty-five
I lost my license
Now I don't drive
I have a limo
Ride in the back
I lock the doors
In case I'm attacked
I don't see where a montary fine is even relevant. The problem was solved. He no longer does the driving.
queer...I've had this discussion on this forum a number of times before. In my personal opinion, the US doesn't have anything compared to Australia, but I'm pretty sure almost everyone feels that way about their place of birth.
I can say this though, I definitely don't want to move to the US. I doubt that I ever would. In my opinion, Australians in general have one of the most enviable lifestyles in the world.
Why would i want to pass that up?
Oh please, you know that they would never come here if they had no other choice. Living as an illegal here is a little better than living in extreme poverty in Mexico. That really isn't a tough standard to beat. You can't say you are the best chef because I prefer your food over shit.
Although I never said it, yes I do believe we are the best. But my comment was directed specifically to queequeger's post. Not sure I see where your food reference fits.
Read the rest of the post, man.
Gotcha, I missed the part in another country - maybe England...my bad.
Hahahaha, Aliantha you've got an extraneous 'r' there at the end of my name. I actually want to live in Australia for a while, maybe that's one of the next stops after the UK if I can convince the wifely one.
And yesman, the food reference implies that paupers (poor mexicans) choosing a slightly better lifestyle (illegal immigration) doesn't say that their minor step up is all that great, it's just better than their last situation.
Thanks for making my point - If coming here was only marginally better than where they currently are, than it wouldn't be worth uprooting their family, taking only what they can carry, traveling a great distance, sneaking into another freakin country, breaking the law..... just to get into a little better situation? C'mon we are infinitely better than where they are coming from and you know it. Thats the reason they want to come here.
Correction, a legal citizen with an education is better off(though 'infinitely' might be pushing it)... an illegal citizen who has to choose between making less than minimum wage and putting himself at far greater health risks, who cannot hold a license or vote and is completely at the mercy of the community is only slighty better off.
Luckily most of us don't know what it's like to be at the bottom, but sometimes the difference between not eating regularly and eating mcdonalds is pretty important. That doesn't mean they have it great or even good.
Sorry quee...i always think queer when i see your name even though I know there's no 'r' where i put it. ;)
I don't mean anything by it though. I'll try and leave the 'r' off from now on and just call you quee. :)
:cool: If I had a nickel for every time someone's called me "Queerwhatever," I'd have a lot of nickels.
Queequeg's a character in a Herman Melville book, if you didn't know that. If you did I look like an ass now. :yelsick:
you might look like an ass anyway, but not to me. ;)
Thanks for making my point - If coming here was only marginally better than where they currently are, than it wouldn't be worth uprooting their family, taking only what they can carry, traveling a great distance, sneaking into another freakin country, breaking the law..... just to get into a little better situation? C'mon we are infinitely better than where they are coming from and you know it. Thats the reason they want to come here.
Yes that is true but that doesn't make us the best country in the world since there is no one thing to compare with. Yes, living as an illegal immigrant here is probably better than living in extreme poverty in Mexico, or they have no other choice to get money, but that doesn't automatically make us the best.
I am not trying to make an argument that we are not a good country to live in, that would be idiotic, but there is no way we can objectively say we are the best.
Thanks for making my point - If coming here was only marginally better than where they currently are, than it wouldn't be worth uprooting their family, taking only what they can carry, traveling a great distance, sneaking into another freakin country, breaking the law..... just to get into a little better situation? C'mon we are infinitely better than where they are coming from and you know it. Thats the reason they want to come here.
Your country offers a better lifestyle for some than they would get at home. That doesnb't mean your country offers a better lifestyle than everyone gets in that country, merely those who choose to leave it. Far more people choose to stay in their country of origin than ever choose to leave it. You get a minority of people from any one country. Many other countries get a minority of people from elsewhere. Some of the countries who get a minority of people from elsewhere joining them, also have a minority of people leaving their country to go elsewhere.
People have been migrating in smaller or larger numbers since humanity began. Sometimes people move to another country expecting a better life and are happy in their choice. Sometimes people move to another country and discover that the grass is not greener on the other side, after all.
People arrive at, and leave, the shores of my country by hundreds of thousands a year. I have little doubt that people arrive in and leave your country in similar proportions. There are Americans living in every corner of the globe. There are Australians, Brits, French, Norwegian, Indians, Chinese and Iranians living in every corner of the globe.
That people choose to come to your country rather than stay in their own says much about your country and says much about theirs, but it's not the whole story. Yours is a great country, it is your home. Mine is a great country, it is my home. There will be Mexicans who would say the same, Indians, Pakistanis, Greeks, etc. Most of us are brought up to love our country, to identifiy with the people and places which constitute our home. Even when that home is a difficult place to be (i.e if you happen to be Congalese or Iraqi) we still love it.
I never said that everyone in every country wants to come here - noever. My point was referring to those people who WANT to come and choose to try and do so - many illegally. Hell, I missed the part where we were talking about every human on the planet.
We were discussing legal and illegal immigrants that try to come to the US, my comments were specifically about them and I stand by what I said. Dana, I am sure that yous is the best country for you - just like Australia is, I'm sure, the best for Ali and Ducks. None of you are trying to come here either. To assume that I meant every human is silly.
My opinion that America is the best country is MY OPINION and I still believe that. I'm sure most of you feel the same about your respective countries. There is no correlation to it being the best for every person on the planet. If my post was unclear, I'm sorry. Did this clear it up?
Yeah we should get some political movement to free the people of Scandinavia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, et al. How can we let these horrible social democracies just lock up their people!
Listen to the plight of the Nords! This affront to free societies can not stand!
You aren't serious are you??? Are you comparing those countries to the US??? C'mon.
No, he want's to bring the US down to their level. He's more than happy to give away my money and my country so we aren't being mean.
Just who the fuck said we were better than everyone else?
That kind of hints at it.
If you were following along, you'd realize the discussion was not about the whole world, just the northern European socialist states. But queequeger, true to form, tries to convince people that what was said, was not what was intended, according to his crystal ball.
He started the deception with...
Dana, Aliantha, how does it feel living in squalor and without freedoms? You guys must really hate sitting on the other side of the pond reading our free, amazing, american comments and thinking 'Oh, please! Please let me come in, it's so horrible over here!'
and apparently it works with some people. He's been doing this consistantly so beware of liars.
I never said that everyone in every country wants to come here - noever. My point was referring to those people who WANT to come and choose to try and do so - many illegally. Hell, I missed the part where we were talking about every human on the planet.
We were discussing legal and illegal immigrants that try to come to the US, my comments were specifically about them and I stand by what I said. Dana, I am sure that yous is the best country for you - just like Australia is, I'm sure, the best for Ali and Ducks. None of you are trying to come here either. To assume that I meant every human is silly.
My opinion that America is the best country is MY OPINION and I still believe that. I'm sure most of you feel the same about your respective countries. There is no correlation to it being the best for every person on the planet. If my post was unclear, I'm sorry. Did this clear it up?
It's not your fault. queequeger has been promoting the notion that anyone that opposes unrestricted/uncontrolled immigration is basing it on the belief that every person in the world would suddenly flock here. It's a straw man he can easily knock down because it's so stupid, and if he can convince people that's what you really meant, make you look stupid.
Do you really think one person can make another person look stupid online if they aren't already predisposed to looking stupid Bruce?
If you can convince people someone made stupid statements they didn't make, sure.
If you were following along, you'd realize the discussion was not about the whole world, just the northern European socialist states.
Ohh....right, so you were only saying that America is better than the northern European states (such as my country for instance). You obviously wouldn't want to bring America down to our level, I can quite understand that.
Oh stop it, you know damn well we were talking about Scandinavia, smartass.
Do you really consider GB, Europe now? Wasn't so long ago it would have been an insult. Must be the EU thing, even though france and Germany eye you with suspicion.
Of course they eye us with suspicion....as we do them :P Doesn't mean we aren't in the same 'family'.
I consider myself to be (and always have done) English, British and European. There are many in Britain who don't want to see greater political unity, but even Eurosceptics can usually see the cultural links. Britain is a European nation. The arguments tend to be about what Europe actually is in political terms.
I also don't see why you would see Scandinavia as somewhere down to whose level America might be brought. Scandinavian countries are great places to live.
I also don't see why you would see Scandinavia as somewhere down to whose level America might be brought. Scandinavian countries are great places to live.
If you like high taxes and lutefisk, yah.
Somehow, spending our vacation going to the
Ikea warehouse, isn't quite exiting enough for the average American.
We like a little more excitement and variety.
Dana, we're just a different breed here...we're just not a very collective society...thank the monarchs and those in charge of your country in the 18th century for that. ;)
There's nothing really wrong with the way you all do things, nor is there anything really wrong with the way we do things. I don't necessarily always like the way we operate, but I think I would take it over what I know of Europe and Canada. But to be fair, I've never been there, so maybe it is wonderful and I'd be agreeable to it...but I seriously doubt it. And you've never lived here, so you too are limited in your "decision-making."
queer...I've had this discussion on this forum a number of times before. In my personal opinion, the US doesn't have anything compared to Australia, but I'm pretty sure almost everyone feels that way about their place of birth.
I can say this though, I definitely don't want to move to the US. I doubt that I ever would. In my opinion, Australians in general have one of the most enviable lifestyles in the world.
Why would i want to pass that up?
I think Australia,France,Italy, Europe are great. I would love to go to those countrys. I hope the residents don't assume we Americans think everyone wants to come here. We don't. We have neighbors in the North and we arn't scratching our heads wondering why they are not migrating. :p
The only people that want to come here are the ones who's houses are built from planks of wood from shipping pallets. We give ourselves away as a country so please be kind. :)
Well not the only ones, but certainly they want to come here... or most anywhere they are allowed to go.
My point is, there are billions of those people living in, or close to, poverty. Hell, there are millions starving to death. To speculate an influx of 100 million, with no restrictions, is conservative.
I've eaten at The Big Texan. Yes, they serve large beef, anything up to fifty-some ounces on a plate and salad and baked potato, as well as some of the kickin'est jalapen~os I've ever tasted -- more like the high end of a whole serrano, and deep-fried rattlesnake as a go-with.
It's a celebration of carnivory, Texas size. They keep a logbook to memorialize those who have downed the fifty-some-ounce platter with the fixin's within sixty minutes, and without losing their lunches. You do that, it's on the house. You lose it, it's forty dollars US.
[youtube]9qte9Ykthj8[/youtube]
On the admittedly scanty basis of having bucketed around Perth WA for about a week twenty-some years ago, I'll venture a remark about the comparative social feel and lifestyles of the States and Oz.
The similarities are broad and deep. Australians and Americans can hardly help but get along well, and no doubt the same is true of Canadians if you stipulate an addition of heavy snow and ice hockey.
Look at what we start with: a fundamentally English society, Magna Carta, 1066 And All That, both having an Anglican church among others, and both a colonial, settler effort. Transplant these into a wider, hotter, drier land than Mother England -- and a habit of saying "Mother England" that lives still. The result is a race and stock of people in either place cultivating and respecting many of the same virtues. This American over here is much attached to the Stars and Stripes but damn! -- that Southern Cross/Union Jack is a pretty thing too...
And the differences? Plenty to see there too. The States' parturition from the mother country was much more contentious and difficult and bloody, which made for an immediate and rather wide standing away politically. Influences from all over Europe, especially France and Germany, immediately followed, and took root in a freewheeling, root hog or die economy and society that rolled as inevitably as a tide from east to west. I don't know how Australia views these things, but in all the UK you have a careful awareness of where the line is and you don't cross it, however closely you may approach it. But America's national legend is simply replete with the theme of crossing lines, from the western frontiers to the line drawn in the dust at the Alamo that opened the 1847 War with Mexico: to Americans, lines are what you cross. How you cross them and to what effect, ah, there's the art of the thing.
This freewheeling, wide-open feel is in my experience unique to the United States -- nobody else seems willing to take it so far. Australian society has a more constrained feel to it -- Singapore has this feel also. Americans tend to view "it isn't done" with a very jaundiced eye, and by jingo, they'll likely find a way to do it -- with the varied results of either getting locked up, or sparking a great innovation.
UG, you have to realize that what you've just posted with reference to Australia is a load of crap.
I'll let the poms take up their own side of the issue.
I'll stand by it, thanks -- I did not feel that degree of freewheeling openness in Australia that I did immediately upon returning to the States.
that's because the US is your home UG. Surely you can see that. Everyone feels safer at home, regardless of how cloistered that home is.
but in all the UK you have a careful awareness of where the line is and you don't cross it, however closely you may approach it. But America's national legend is simply replete with the theme of crossing lines, from the western frontiers to the line drawn in the dust at the Alamo that opened the 1847 War with Mexico:
Hmm...I suspect the Irish, Scots and Welsh may have a thing or two to say about crossing lines...
But the British didn't cross lines as
awesomely as the Americans did. We did it with gusto, power of will, and very cool hats.
Plus our guys never had to wear those stuffy red uniforms.
Bill Cosby's Revolutionary War Coin Toss:
The Revolutionary War of 1776 - Captain Holman of the settlers meet Captain Sothby of the British. Captain Sothby of the British meet Captain Holman of the settlers. (they shake hands) You call the toss there Brits. Okay the Brits called heads, it is tails. You won the toss Holman. So settlers what you gonna do? Alright, Capt. Holman says that his guys get to wear any kind of clothes they want to, shoot from behind rocks, and trees; while Capt. Sothby your guys must stay in the open, wear red and march in straight lines.
Where did Columbus hail from originally, and what nationality is he considered to be?
well gee, maybe the Italians know a thing or two about crossing lines.
Well sure, look at the ancient Romans.
And the French. Let's not forget the Egyptians and those pyramids. Hmmm...Aztecs too.
Yeah, there are a lot of nations that have been more than willing to put their toes on the line and then step over it if necessary.
I think some people have an over inflated view of some cultural aspects of their heritage.
I do not know of one, but I do not believe the status should be changed.
