James Yeager vs: Allen Combs

[billt]

I think to appear to be "fair and balanced," they keep a few lefties on board to be assassinated daily on the air. Colmes and Bob Beckel come to mind.

As much as I hate Beckel, he can somewhat hold his own. Colmes on the other hand, is a complete wimp who doesn't even put forth a reasonable argument. I put Juan Williams into much the same category. He's not that smart, and his "arguments" prove it. He is simply pi$$ poor at what he does. Fox hired him because they felt bad he got canned from NPR because of what he said on Fox. It's doubtful he would have been picked up by any other station for regular work. There are better lefties out there. That is assuming there is such a thing as a "better leftie".

 

[JS1911]

I think to appear to be "fair and balanced," they keep a few lefties on board to be assassinated daily on the air. Colmes and Bob Beckel come to mind.

The fact that both are utter imbeciles lends credence to your theory.

 

[ModernGunner]

Maybe Colmes fanatically left rhetoric is why he was 'steered' away from a regular television show and relegated to radio, with the occasional guest appearance on TV?

LOL, HOW 'liberal' is NPR? They fired Juan Williams, a staunch 'old school' liberal by any objective standard, for being too conservative. As for how much NPR actually gets in funding, that was exposed during the whole Williams debacle as being in the 23% - 30% range, perhaps as high as 50%. And where's the other 50% - 70% come from? Perhaps radical lefties like Soros or Bloomberg?

IMO, radio and TV stations don't need, and should not receive, government funding at all, directly or indirectly. None. Let them succeed or fail on their own merit. If they can't make it, then the public has decided so by not patronizing that media source, and it's simply not needed. If a person wants to have that source, let them donate from their own pocket, in after tax dollars (meaning no tax deduction).

Need to cut government spending, it's a good place to start. Same with other 'esoteric' or 'aesthetic' government programs. Don't cut them 'back', cut them 'out'.

 

[Destro]

let them donate from their own pocket, in after tax dollars (meaning no tax deduction).

So are you opposed to the idea of not-for-profit organizations?

 

[billt]

So are you opposed to the idea of not-for-profit organizations?

I've always felt it was foolish to try and regulate organizations so they could not produce a profit, or else they would be punished. We live in a capitalist nation who's government is on the verge of bankruptcy, or soon will be. In spite of that we encourage organizations not to be self sufficient. But rather encourage them to suck off either the government, or the public financial tit.

 

[jamil]

I've always felt it was foolish to try and regulate organizations so they could not produce a profit, or else they would be punished. We live in a capitalist nation who's government is on the verge of bankruptcy, or soon will be. In spite of that we encourage organizations not to be self sufficient. But rather encourage them to suck off either the government, or the public financial tit.

It's one thing to compel people to give their money by force of law. It's another thing to request donations. With non-profits, they should be able to ask, and you should be able to say "no".

In fact, if the government worked on donations, I think that would solve a lot of problems. If some people want their wealth redistributed, fine, they can go right ahead and redistribute their own, all they want.

 

[billt]

It's one thing to compel people to give their money by force of law. It's another thing to request donations. With non-profits, they should be able to ask, and you should be able to say "no".

They should be able to request anything they want from the people. The problem comes when the government gets involved, and places a bunch of restrictions on it. This whole "Non Profit Status" is a bunch of crap. Why does it have to be a "status"? It isn't something you should have to request from the government, then conform to a bunch of crap to get it or not, and even more to maintain it. You should be able to just do it with no penalties or rules attached to it. If you earn a few bucks in the process, great. Pay the income tax on it and be done. But no, if that happens it changes everything. The whole thing is an over complicated mess. Just like everything else the government gets involved in.

 

[Destro]

Pay the income tax on it and be done. But no, if that happens it changes everything. The whole thing is an over complicated mess. Just like everything else the government gets involved in.

So for example, if St. Jude Hospital turns a profit, you would rather them give a portion of that profit to the government then to reinvest that money into the organization. That's the idea of a non profit, your not operating to benefit a few (owners, stockholders), you operate to benefit the many. Your "profits" are then reinvested into your organizations mission. Many NRA programs are c3's, hospitals, churches, missions, schools, outreach programs and other community organizations as well.

 

[billt]

Many NRA programs are c3's, hospitals, churches, missions, schools, outreach programs and other community organizations as well.

It is preposterous that churches operate as a "non profit" organization. Always has been. Where did all their wealth come from? What have they "reinvested" it in? Bigger churches to receive even more donations? The Catholic church for example, is the richest religion on the face of the globe. They have real estate holdings in the billions of dollars. A hospital cures sick people, and in the process saves lives. What does a church accomplish? It is ridiculous that it can operate as a "non profit" organization. If you earn money above your operating expenses, it should be taxed as profit. I'm not saying they should not eligible for the same tax breaks as everyone else, but profit is profit. Regardless of how they want to tag it.

 

[billt]

Remember, churches and other "non profit" organizations do not pay property taxes that run local and state governments. For every dollar they DON'T pay, you and I DO. Their hands are the same as yours and mine. They damn well can pull on their side of the oar. If I can pay taxes on the money I EARN, they can pay it on what they're GIVEN on a silver platter. Especially if it exceeds their operating expenses. The only effort they put forth is cashing the checks. They don't need a financial break for doing that.

 

[jamil]

It is preposterous that churches operate as a "non profit" organization. Always has been. Where did all their wealth come from? What have they "reinvested" it in? Bigger churches to receive even more donations? The Catholic church for example, is the richest religion on the face of the globe. They have real estate holdings in the billions of dollars. A hospital cures sick people, and in the process saves lives. What does a church accomplish? It is ridiculous that it can operate as a "non profit" organization. If you earn money above your operating expenses, it should be taxed as profit. I'm not saying they should not eligible for the same tax breaks as everyone else, but profit is profit. Regardless of how they want to tag it.

I hear you. I don't know if you're religious. That you have this opinion tends to make me think not. I'm agnostic but I firmly support people's right to be religious, and meet together, and do the religious things they believe in. For someone like me it's most analogous to a club, with dues and such. And many churches do outreach that benefits a lot of people. I give to some churches even though I'm not religious because I believe the work they do to help people is important.

Remember, churches and other "non profit" organizations do not pay property taxes that run local and state governments. For every dollar they DON'T pay, you and I DO. Their hands are the same as yours and mine. They damn well can pull on their side of the oar. If I can pay taxes on the money I EARN, they can pay it on what they're GIVEN on a silver platter. Especially if it exceeds their operating expenses. The only effort they put forth is cashing the checks. They don't need a financial break for doing that.

It's not a zero sum game. When a new church is started and they file for their tax exempt status, they don't raise your taxes to compensate. They don't get a financial break because they've put for any special kind of effort, but if you want effort, you might consider the effort it takes to maintain their status.

I don't know. Maybe I have a different view of government and taxes. I'm happy to see people not pay taxes. I think the only taxes that should be mandatory is that which is necessary to fund the minimum constitutional government service. Anything above that should be voluntary. I think if taxes were voluntary, a lot of these people who say they want a bigger government will be outed as they only want bigger government when it's other people's money.

 

[billt]

For someone like me it's most analogous to a club, with dues and such.

I look at it like golf. If you want to play....You pay. If you want to pray....You pay.

I'm happy to see people not pay taxes.

So am I. Just as long as I don't have to pay more to compensate.

 

[RockofStrength]

It is preposterous that churches operate as a "non profit" organization. Always has been. Where did all their wealth come from? What have they "reinvested" it in? Bigger churches to receive even more donations? The Catholic church for example, is the richest religion on the face of the globe. They have real estate holdings in the billions of dollars. A hospital cures sick people, and in the process saves lives. What does a church accomplish? It is ridiculous that it can operate as a "non profit" organization. If you earn money above your operating expenses, it should be taxed as profit. I'm not saying they should not eligible for the same tax breaks as everyone else, but profit is profit. Regardless of how they want to tag it.

At least in this nation, generally speaking churches are not taxed in an attempt to prevent government from interfering in how they teach, preach etc. It makes much more sense if you (like the founders) had a much more antagonistic view towards state-run churches that plagued much of Europe such as the Church of England or the Catholic Church for just about everyone else. The idea of not taxing them was to keep churches removed from government politicking aside from support of candidates over religious issues.

I personally disagree with running a church as a non-profit owing to the separation it places between the church and the community it serves, but the intent was hardly to permit churches to slack off or avoid paying their dues.

 

[billt]

At least in this nation, generally speaking churches are not taxed in an attempt to prevent government from interfering in how they teach, preach etc. It makes much more sense if you (like the founders) had a much more antagonistic view towards state-run churches that plagued much of Europe such as the Church of England or the Catholic Church for just about everyone else. The idea of not taxing them was to keep churches removed from government politicking aside from support of candidates over religious issues.

I personally disagree with running a church as a non-profit owing to the separation it places between the church and the community it serves, but the intent was hardly to permit churches to slack off or avoid paying their dues.

A church can be taxed without being "government run".

 

[RockofStrength]

A church can be taxed without being "government run".

Likewise so can a coal-fired power plant, but that's not how those things tend to work out. Even if you don't necessarily have open "State-sanctioned priests/imams/whatever" wandering about, is there really a difference if the State can just crank up reasonable-sounding taxes on organizations they dislike? The old "if you want to repress something, tax it" tactic?

 

[billt]

Likewise so can a coal-fired power plant......

A power plant produces power. A church produces nothing.

 

[Destro]

A power plant produces power. A church produces nothing.

Many have daycare's, food banks, after school programs, summer programs, provided assistance to shut in's, visit ill in the hospital.

 

[RockofStrength]

A power plant produces power. A church produces nothing.

And...? My point had nothing to do with the practicality of a church vs. a power plant, but rather how taxation can be used to control them. The government doesn't like coal plants, so it tightens regs and raises fees until they put them out of business. Likewise, a taxed church could be squeezed rather rapidly by a convenient tax that just so happened to apply only to certain kinds of buildings or organizations.

 

[billt]

Likewise, a taxed church could be squeezed rather rapidly by a convenient tax that just so happened to apply only to certain kinds of buildings or organizations.

You can say that about any individual, business or organization that currently pays taxes. It's the reason a lot of these businesses are not hiring today. As soon as the people get enough sense to stop voting for these liberal socialists, the money will again bust loose, and there will be jobs a plenty. It's nothing more than a cycle that repeats itself as we go from Republicans to Democrats, then back again. Besides, nether party could levy enough tax on the Catholic church to strangle it financially. They have more cash tied up in gold and stained glass than General Motors has in tooling.

 

[billt]

Many have daycare's, food banks, after school programs, summer programs, provided assistance to shut in's, visit ill in the hospital.

The churches don't provide that. Their parishioners do. Again, a church produces nothing except a fancy building to collect money in.