Good Lord

[cycloneworld]

Perhaps they could start by rolling back all the bush tax cuts for the rich and start trying to take a little better care of the middle and lower class. That could help.

So you want to get rid of the child tax credit as well then...?

Your statement sounds like something I hear on TV all of the time. When "rich" people pay most of the taxes, shouldn't they get most of the return? Or should we not have poor people pay any taxes at all?

 

[Cyclonepride]

Here's the best analogy that I can come up with. Every American has a right to weigh 550 pounds, and wear a thong to the beach. That's your right. Every American at that beach has a right to feel how they want to feel about your choice. Some could care less, some would be disgusted, some would be offended. It is their right to feel that way. It is your right to do it anyway. But don't waddle your butt out onto the beach and expect all positive reactions.

 

[chadm]

Perhaps they could start by rolling back all the bush tax cuts for the rich and start trying to take a little better care of the middle and lower class. That could help.

Explanation of tax cuts:
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact, without questioning it. But what does that really mean?

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1...

The sixth would pay $3...

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but, what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But, if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," (5% discount) declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10 out of the $20" (50% discount)

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"


"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"


"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

 

[businesscyman]

I put this first because I agree with it.


I'm one of those people, and I'm not going anywhere. I don't tend to get too up in arms over them because they are relatively minor, but if I had my way we would get rid of all the "God" references.

Kyle would that include the one in the preamble of the constitution? Granted it references their "creator" but it still gives recognition to the one supreme.

 

[cycloneworld]

I normally agree with you, cyworld, but I do think this is something to discuss. The Pilgrims actually came and began a colony to escape religious persecution. True, they were still Christian, and the founding fathers do discuss God, but freedom of religion is also a fundamental part of the Constitution.

Agreed. But most of the religious ideals came from Christianity. I'm not sure I see your point.

My argument to this would be that we then shouldn't require gays to pay taxes. If they're paying taxes, they should get the same benefits.

Me and my brother pay taxes...should we get married for the tax advantages to get the same benefits?

 

[CTAClone]

Believe me, there is a significant monetary gain from being married. I've compared what I pay in taxes now versus what I would pay if married and it's several thousand dollars.

And I have no proof that it would happen just as you have no proof that it wouldn't happen. But it's possible.

I didn't say gays shouldn't get married I'm just pointing out that in a money-obsessed country, it may come into play. Just like how tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people each year but the government does nothing about it because of $$$.

Why can't to Homosexuals benefit from tax breaks like all other married couples?

The government has done stuff against smoking. Every cigarette is labeled that it is dangerous. Many states have banned smoking inside. Many cities, especially here in California have banned smoking outside if you are within 20 feet of a window or door. I think the government is doing stuff, and I think it is infringing upon my rights. Next thing you know, smoking will be completely banned. Who has the right to tell me that I can't smoke?

I agree that the government is taking away stuff this country was founded upon. We are becoming a scared country with two very different and vocal views that are lead by a small minority on both sides. Changes are being made on both ends that take away our fundamental rights. There now is a lot of censorship and invasion of privacy happening now. There is a lot of changes made to seperate church and state. Both fronts are lead by a small minority, and I find that more scary than anything that has been discussed in this thread.

 

[cycloneworld]

Chadm, exactly right. You don't hear that kind of breakdown on the news.

 

[jparker22]

marriage is good for the government.

Say each earns $40000 per year.
Single person pays $6558 in taxes.
Married file seperately $6558 in taxes.
Married file joint $13115, a grand total difference of $1 in favor of the taxpayer

If each person earns $80000 per year each.
Single person pays $16732in taxes.
Married file seperately $17102 in taxes.
Married file joint $34,204 a grand total difference of $740 in favor of the government

 

[Kyle]

That young thing made me choke on lunch funny stuff. I don't disagree with you on the point of public discourse and this thread is a great example. Would you agree most of the "progress" to date has been judicial fiat which is not democratic (yes I know elected officials appoint judges in most cases) but judges are typically not accountable to anyone unless they are in gross misconduct.

I would agree that much of the legal progress to date has been by judicial fiat. This is the most visable because it has been big issues such as gay marriage. I don't want to discount what has been done legislatively though. State legislatures have passed protections based on sexual orientation, in fact such a bill is pending in Iowa right now and is likely to pass. I haven't done enough research to be able to comment on to what extent the gay agenda has succeeded legislatively, but I know that it has. There has of course also been progress in changing public opinion, which is the groundwork for legislative and judicial change (although the judiciary wouldn't like to admit it).

 

[Kyle]

Kyle would that include the one in the preamble of the constitution? Granted it references their "creator" but it still gives recognition to the one supreme.

I wouldn't have put it in originally, but it is so innocuous now that I probably wouldn't put forth much if any effort to change it.

 

[Kyle]

You see, the difference is, our country wasn't formed by muslims who wanted religious freedom. Nice try though. :dull8ay:

That's a difference, but is it a relevant difference? Does the fact that a nation was formed by people of predominantely one religion and a majority of that nation's people are still that religion mean that the government of that country should endorse that religion?

Suppose in the future 80% of the people in this country are atheists. Should the pledge be changed to say "one nation, not under God."

 

[Kyle]

If it's a big deal to your or your child, they don't have to say the "Under God" part. I think that would be less disruptive than trying to get the whole pledge changed and having the ones that want to make that statement throw it in in the middle of everybody else saying "indivisible". I for one am not going around my classroom head hunting for kids that aren't saying "under God" when we say the pledge in the morning. I would think that most teachers would feel the same way.

Legally children don't have to say the pledge at all and could stay seated for it. However, socially, the pressures are great for someone who is not even 10 years old and is trying to fit in. Why even have the under God part? The pledge was changed once to put it in, it could just as easily be changed again to take it out.

 

[Kyle]

Why get rid of all of the "God" references??

If I had to give an affirmative answer it would be that it is an unnecessary government endorsement of religion that violates separation of church and state principles. I prefer to answer with a counter-question though of "Why have the God references at all?"

#1: Almost 80% of the American population believe in the Christian version of God.

I don't see how that is a reason for the government to endorse that view. If 80% of the country were athiest should we put "not under god" on everything?

#2: If that's not enough...we don't say "Under The Christian God" in the pledge or "In The Christian God We Trust" on the money so that can account for any other "god" you believe in. Now you are probably at about 90% of the population.

Same argument as before, just replace 80% with 90%.

Why should we change ideals that 90% of the population believe in for the 10% that don't?

I think its important to look at exactly what would be changed. The fact that 90% believe in god does not mean that 90% believe the government should endorse a belief in god. No one is saying the government should affirmatively deny the existance of a god, but that it should be silent on the issue.

 

[CloneFan65]

The way things are going we may as well just cancel Christmas now, send home the missionaries and Red Cross people that provide aid in third world countries, and bulldoze the inner city soup kitchens. That's what we're looking at next, since it's so offensive. After they had to take down all the Christmas decorations in Lagomarcino because of the one jewish professor who was deeply offended by it, I wanted to call into MTV and tell them how bad they hurt my feelings when they put dudes showering together on television. It really makes you wonder when it's going to get to the point where we have to live in a culture with just white walls, no decorations or designs cause they might offend somebody and nobody willing to say anything cause they'll get in trouble. And then somebody will cry that all of the people in power are on an agenda with the white walls because it has a double meaning, so we'll have to have rainbows on everything. Some crap just burns me...when they take down off the "God" stuff from everything, it's because it demonstrates a Christian belief, and there's no room for belief in government. Never mind that taking it down is demonstrating an Atheist or Agnostic belief, which offends people (and a lot more of them) too.

I'm not sure what you're refering to. I've never felt like anyone was trying to cancel Christmas. Much of this has to do with the media like Bill O'Reilly making a huge issue out of nothing. We send Christmas cards to our Jewish friends and their not offended. My Muslim students wish me a Merry Christmas before Christmas break. Other than a few atheist whackos, I don't think most people give a rip whether we say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." The conservative media has started this paranoid hysteria that there's a "War on Christmas". Fear not. Our holiday is safe.

 

[htownclone]

That's a difference, but is it a relevant difference? Does the fact that a nation was formed by people of predominantely one religion and a majority of that nation's people are still that religion mean that the government of that country should endorse that religion?

Suppose in the future 80% of the people in this country are atheists. Should the pledge be changed to say "one nation, not under God."

I don't understand your hypothetical examples because they aren't even remotely close to having happened and being true. The fact is we were formed because of a desire for religious freedom. The country was founded on certain principles that we still use today and is the reason people wanted to come to the United States. People came to the United States because of what the United States stands for and because of those foundational principles it was built upon. The problem is people now think that our country is the type of place that allows anything and everything and that they should be able to do whatever they want because we are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of different viewpoints. But this type of thinking is far from what our country was founded on. Why do we seem to cater to the people with minority viewpoints?

From these minority viewpoint groups' opinions, maybe we should all be nihilists and believe in nothing. We can think there isn't a creator, no morals, no truth. But I think we all know what happened to the group of nihilists in the Big Lebowski. :rofl8yi:

To answer the 2nd part, it's precisely the opposite now. That hypothetical really isn't relevant or even close.

 

[Kyle]

This thread does remind of some TV stuff, although not cartoons as the thread started out discussing.

Has anyone seen the Southpark where Butters gets sent the bible camp thing because he's "bi-curious?" I was also quite amused by Stephen Colbert's war on easter spoof.

 

[htownclone]

I'm not sure what you're refering to. I've never felt like anyone was trying to cancel Christmas. Much of this has to do with the media like Bill O'Reilly making a huge issue out of nothing. We send Christmas cards to our Jewish friends and their not offended. My Muslim students wish me a Merry Christmas before Christmas break. Other than a few atheist whackos, I don't think most people give a rip whether we say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." The conservative media has started this paranoid hysteria that there's a "War on Christmas". Fear not. Our holiday is safe.

lol. This has nothing to do with the conservative media creating anything. Read this article from the Iowa State Daily.

http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com...005/12/01/News/tisnt.The.Season-1117569.shtml

These are just a couple exerpts from the article.

Warren Blumenfeld, assistant professor of curriculum and instruction, practices the Jewish faith while living in a traditionally Christian culture, and said Christmas symbols on public grounds attack his beliefs.

Christmas decorations hanging in the curriculum and instruction department office in Lagomarcino Hall in past years offended him and other professors, he said.

"Some of us are very upset of the display of religious symbolism, especially Christian symbolism during Christmas time," he said. "You can't even see the walls. There are Christmas trees, there are ornaments, there's displays."

"Walk down Main Street - it's all Christian symbols, some of them paid for by the merchants, some are paid for by tax dollars and the public workers put them up at the public's expense," he said. "Basically, it's imposing, promoting, in some ways assaulting."

His logic is that he doesn't publicly celebrate his Jewish holidays, so we shouldn't either. I had this guy's class and he would tell us he'd throw away christmas cards he'd receive cause they were basically assaulting him.

I don't think the conservative media is making this up...

 

[cycloneworld]

If I had to give an affirmative answer it would be that it is an unnecessary government endorsement of religion that violates separation of church and state principles. I prefer to answer with a counter-question though of "Why have the God references at all?"

Because our country was founded based on religious principles. It's unnecessary to "know where you came from"?? That's the problem nowadays, people ARE forgetting.

I don't see how that is a reason for the government to endorse that view. If 80% of the country were athiest should we put "not under god" on everything?

Again...if athiests founded the country, then why not. Why should we cater to the 10-20% that have a problem with religion? If 10% of the people think stealing is okay...should we allow that too?

I think its important to look at exactly what would be changed. The fact that 90% believe in god does not mean that 90% believe the government should endorse a belief in god. No one is saying the government should affirmatively deny the existance of a god, but that it should be silent on the issue.

I don't think putting "In God We Trust" on our money means the government is "sponsoring" religion. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but it's how our country started.

If a group of athiests want to go off, fight for their independence, and start their own country...then go for it.

 

[Angie]

Agreed. But most of the religious ideals came from Christianity. I'm not sure I see your point.

Me and my brother pay taxes...should we get married for the tax advantages to get the same benefits?

Yes, most of them did originate from Christianity - but the rights/ideals that were derived from Christianity weren't afforded only to Christians, is my point. They didn't write, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... as long as you're Christian and believe as we do." As I said before - I am a Christian, and may agree with your feelings that our God is the "right" one, but both our Constitution and the Amendments afford everyone the right to think and worship as they believe. I was just saying that the argument that the country has degenerated because we have gotten away from Christian ideals implies that anyone who doesn't have Christian ideals/beliefs is not supporting a good national climate.

I understand what you're saying - but I don't think you're understanding my point. You're saying that you would just be marrying for the monetary benefits. The misinterpretation of the desire of gays to marry is that they are only doing it for tax and health benefits. I didn't marry my husband for tax purposes - I did it out of love. That's why they are asking for these rights. It's just as likely for a man and a woman to marry for financial purposes as it would be for a man and a man, or a woman and a woman - it's pretty unfair to paint the entire gay community with the same brush, saying they are all just trying to exploit the system.

 

[explorer]

First off, about Bush, I have a problem with him using his religion as a reason to declare war on a country.

As for your second paragraph, my problem is something that the founding fathers put in place back when this country was first started. The seperation of church and state. Just because the church thinks something is wrong doesn't mean that we should deny people rights that people who don't even believe in God or Jesus recieve. Take the church out of the equation and there is no logical argument for denying homosexuals a state sanctioned marriage.

Three things, first, Bush did not use his religion to declare war on a country. He merely said he prayed about it prior to going to war (and remember, the Congress authorized the war).

Second, there is NO PLACE in the constitution that declares a separation of church and state, that is a complete fallacy. The separation of church and state was written in a private letter from Jefferson to the Baptist Church b/c the Baptists were afraid that there was going to be a state sanction religion and Jefferson was assuring them there would not be. Additionally, God's name is invoked in our constitution and many of the supporting writings and documents of our founding fathers indicate they were forming a government founded upon Christian principals.

Third, if we allow state sanction marraige for homosexuals, then abolish the polygamy laws and let me marry as many women as I wish. While we're at it, let's abolish bestiality and those laws also. The question is, where will it end? It won't. (and don't think I'm being ridiculous b/c there have already been lawsuits filed to put an end to polygamy - additionally, look up NAMBA and what they are trying to accomplish, which is disgusting).