Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Removing the electoral system is a task to big for any one party to do alone.
Besides the Democrats began disliking third parties after Nader. So I really don't think there going to back any legislation that empowers other parties.
Speaker Boehner: Ending Taxpayer-Funded Abortions ‘One Of Our Most Fundamental Goals’
edited 26th Jan '13 11:15:24 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Uh, no. Really, really no. It makes you wonder which word he's having problems with; the meaning of 'philosophy' or the meaning of 'religion'.
The only parts of Christianity which are 'philosophical' are the ethical and doctrinal parts. It's got a whole load of ritual, narrative and experiential stuff which isn't remotely philosophical.
Actually, the doctrine in Christianity is often a desperate attempt to make sense of an incomprehensible religious experience.
You don't have to convince me, I know he's being stupid. I was just saying someone should use his statements as an excuse to advocate taxing churches. I mean if they're not religious institutions then they clearly don't need to be exempt.
Although Christian Atheism could possibly fit with what he's talking about.
It depends on the argument used for not taxing churches. As I understand it, the constitutional issue is that - if you tax churches - you have the power to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
The UK argument is that churches are de facto charities, supported largely by donations of living and dead members. So trying to remove their charitable status on the grounds that they're a 'philosophy' would be pretty much a non-starter; they could just point to their charitable 'works'.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Churches are considerably less political in the United Kingdom. Once you use your religion to offer support and financial aid to blatantly political projects, as many American churches are wont to do, your case that you are "purely a philosophy" is severely undermined. As George Carlin said "If churches want to play the game of politics, let it pay the admission fees like everyone else". In the UK, the Church of England is the established church, and the Church in Wales and the Church of Scotland have a proximity to the state that keeps them fairly quiet.
Schild und Schwert der Partei![]()
Still dodgy. What part of politics would you like churches taxed for? The right wing stuff you might not like, or the debt cancellation you might agree with? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury lose his tax exempt status whenever he makes a speech that can be construed as critical of the current government's position? Or - going back into history - would you have taxed those U.S. churches which were heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement?
And so forth. 'Religion' isn't some nice, neat little section of existence that can be cordoned off from 'real life'. It affects the way people think about the world - and that will also affect their views on politics and politicians.
Which is probably why the First Amendment enshrined the 'let's stay out of this whole can of worms' principle
edited 27th Jan '13 10:23:14 AM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.I think churches should be made to pay property taxes, even if it's at a very small rate, if they take in a certain amount of money. It's not much per church but it would add up.
Remember that "rape babies are evidence" bill?
Somehow I have a hard time believing she genuinely missed that. She's just covering her ass.
edited 27th Jan '13 10:34:07 AM by Kostya
Again, the danger is that the power to tax can be used punitively. I'm sure you can think of one or two cases where property taxes have effectively been used to evict people.
Now, imagine a case where property taxes mysteriously increase for, say, a mosque? Or that historically-black church? Or any Mormon temple in South Carolina?
Etc.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.![]()
![]()
![]()
EVEN THE RE-WORDED BILL IS HORIBLE. It IS possible for a woman to rape a man and by saying "In no circumstance shall the mother of the fetus be charged." it does not work against that sort of rape even if it would work at all. I'm not even going to begin on the other aspects of it *grumble*
...sorry, had to get that off my chest.
edited 27th Jan '13 10:47:09 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!![]()
![]()
People, this is the US POLITICS thread.
Not the 'dump random , unrelated subjects and hope someone discusses' thread.
EDIT: The taxing of religious institutions would be a blatant violation of the separation of church and state, so obviously I'm opposed to the idea.
On top of that, it would close down a lot of churches/synagogues/temples/mosques/etc,.
Senator Feinstein (D-CA) sees Sandy Hook as an 'epiphany'
Gingrich: Assault-Weapons Ban Would Punish the ‘Innocent’
Representative Paul Ryan says he thinks ‘sequester is going to happen’
edited 27th Jan '13 11:18:49 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Taxing them all at the same rate is not vary fair. If you have a church in the middle of NYC and a church in a small rural town that are the same size and bring in simular amounts of money (not likely, but possible), the one in NYC almost certainly has larger bills and would be less able to afford taxes.
You can let them deduct their bills before figuring out how much they should be taxed, but then the question becomes "what bills should they be able to use?"
Though I do agree with taxing all religous buildings at the same rate (if we could at all), I'm sure that there will be huge pressure to but in a bunch of little loopholes that certain religious will be able to use while others won't be able to. One religion does X activity all the time while another would never do X activity for some religious reason.
...This is why tax law is so complicated and hard to change. It needs to be simplified and the country needs more income, but there are few good ways of doing ether let alone both at the same time.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Because the state is directly taxing the church.
Senator McCain (R-AZ) to GOP: Accept path to citizenship in immigration-reform bill
![]()
![]()
![]()
Note I said "if we could at all" in there. I was just explaining why it is not as easy as saying "raise taxes" and how it applies to our whole tax code.
If you ever want to have some "fun" and learn about how our tax code got so complicated, look into the rules of Schedule A (Itemized Deductions: accessable through irs.gov). Try to figure out why those rules were created in the first place and what you could change/remove (in order to increase tax revenue) without making a LOT of people upset (AKA: loose your job as a representitive). And if you think that one is too complicated, check out Sch C (Self Employment) and SE (Self Employment Tax).
edited 27th Jan '13 11:43:26 AM by Belian
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!@No Name 999
: I assume you're mentioning this as a way of calling the US out on supporting Israel?
Churches don't have to pay income tax because they are usually organized as 501(c)(3) exempt organizations under the tax code
Taxing them at the same rate as any other business (and let's not delude ourselves, churches are businesses) would not violate separation of church and state. If anything, exempting them from taxation puts them in a privileged position over other types of organizations. It wouldn'tchangetheir rates based on doctrine or religion. Whatever they take in is taxed, minus their ordinary deductions.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

But all of that is based on the assumption that we're using the current system. Instead, the hypothetical case is where we already reformed the system so that we don't have single member plurality. By then, I don't see how Republicans can keep a plurality because they'll lose the same electoral advantage Democrats lost; there's less incentive for voter base to unite when libertarians, for example, can freely get elected on their own. But even if Republicans somehow got a plurality, by then it's a lot less significant.
Picture the situation where Democrats push for multiparty reforms, vs Republicans resisting them. If reforms do not pass, Democrats still keep their two-party advantage (they can say "we tried" while they keep trying). No loss to them. Meanwhile people get annoyed if the Republicans become obstructive. That will whittle down popularity of Republicans.
I don't think the current encompassing is how it's supposed to be. It's skewed for a couple of reasons.
Part of the reason existing parties are small is because people don't know enough about them. They see too much D vs R. This awareness is something that needs to be pushed alongside reforms. And part of the reason is because the current electoral system discourages it, and it makes it difficult for you to vote for third parties without wasting votes. I don't think either the voters or the elected representatives themselves would be as encompassed if they could help it. Right now, they can't help it. Or so they think.
I mean, I agree that US two-party system still works somehow, and it's better than undemocratic countries that don't listen enough to their citizens. Still, the third parties (and other activists) are proposing more fair systems of voting (alternatives to single-member plurality and mixed systems), and to actively turn that down is to refuse a better system. When I mean by suppressing democracy I mean something specific: suppressing more effective multiparty democracy. It's just more subtle because we don't hear enough of it; we're busy enough talking about the other party.
It's not just on paper, though. We know that there are working multiparty systems in other countries; they rely on coalitions, and that shows it's possible. I personally think reducing the reliance on single-member, FTPT district elections would do more good than simply lowering thresholds for parties and term limits.
I just think the benefit/impact of this issue is potent, but Democrats at large are unable to see it for short-term gain in the partisan fight.
edited 26th Jan '13 8:29:41 PM by Trivialis