Contraceptive Kerfluffle

[migopod]

Churches are tax exempt because they are 501C3 "non-profit" organizations and their involvement in politics is regulated accordingly.

Corporations are tax exempt because of their involvement in politics and unions are slowly but surely becoming illegal.

[telkanuru]

Small government!

So small that it fits right inside your bedroom.

[Lady Quindecim]

So small that it fits right inside your *palm*.

There, fixed it.

[jeff]

Really? You mean, the "very little" that corporations and unions do?

Religion manages to meddle too much in politics and government as it is IMO. I don't want it going hog-wild.

Inquartata expresses a political opinion with which I completely agree. I better go lie down now...

[OROD]

Really? You mean, the "very little" that corporations and unions do? Religion manages to meddle too much in politics and government as it is IMO. I don't want it going hog-wild.

I didnt say that corporation's engagement in government is "very little" and churches should have the same latitude. I said that both should have the same ability to engage in political activities, that being very little... as in, less than now. Both are special interest groups, and hence both should be kept from actively influencing and distorting the political process towards their own ends.

The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state.

Uhm, riiiiiiight. So, churches are entitled to services from the government like everyone else, they just dont have to pay for them like everyone else. Yeah, that's not special treatment at all.

[Hauptman]

I didnt say that corporation's engagement in government is "very little" and churches should have the same latitude. I said that both should have the same ability to engage in political activities, that being very little... as in, less than now. Both are special interest groups, and hence both should be kept from actively influencing and distorting the political process towards their own ends.Uhm, riiiiiiight. So, churches are entitled to services from the government like everyone else, they just dont have to pay for them like everyone else. Yeah, that's not special treatment at all.

Let's not forget that donations to a church are also tax deductible so they have a larger impact on gov't revenues. However, political donations (or money given to unions) are not tax-deductible.

[Inquartata]

Churches are tax exempt because they are 501C3 "non-profit" organizations and their involvement in politics is regulated accordingly.

Corporations are tax exempt because of their involvement in politics and unions are slowly but surely becoming illegal.

Corporations are tax exempt?

I didnt say that corporation's engagement in government is "very little" and churches should have the same latitude. I said that both should have the same ability to engage in political activities, that being very little... as in, less than now. Both are special interest groups, and hence both should be kept from actively influencing and distorting the political process towards their own ends

So...you want a completely different world than the one in which we live...

So do I. But we work with what we've got.

[OROD]

So...you want a completely different world than the one in which we live...

Sort of, yes.

So do I. But we work with what we've got.

Congress gives you lemons, make government lemonade? Oh, wait, would that be like government cheese? Wow, I remember eating government cheese when I was a kid. Actually, wasnt so bad. Do they even still have that? But, I'll pass on the government lemonade though. Cant we just do like the French in the good ole days and bring back the guillotine?

[Inquartata]

Haven't you heard? Revolutions can't succeed because the people don't have machineguns, tanks and artillery.

[OROD]

Haven't you heard? Revolutions can't succeed because the people don't have machineguns, tanks and artillery.

Speak for yourself.

[Inquartata]

As Johnny Carson used to say, "You buy the premise, you buy the bit".

[migopod]

Here's a data point!

66% approve of Obama's birth control proposal and 26% oppose it. Still a bad move on his part?

[the ancient one]

"...But, I'll pass on the government lemonade though..."

Haven't you noticed?
The Republicans moved that program to the "private" sector.
It's called "trickle down".

[erik_blank]

Hummm.. I think that if Nixon had tried this when he was in office it would have had a different name than Trickle DOWN.... but would still perfectly describe the effectiveness of the term...

[the ancient one]

Well, I did say "private" sector.

[Inquartata]

66% approve of Obama's birth control proposal and 26% oppose it. Still a bad move on his part?

I'm going to say "yes". Because I don't think it really has much to do with the overall numbers; it has to do with religious moderates and independents specifically. Picking a fight with them in an election year still doesn't seem to me to be very wise. And then he backtracked on it, which probably didn't please the liberals very much ( although let's face it, he isn't going to lose them no matter what he does ).

[migopod]

I'm going to say "yes". Because I don't think it really has much to do with the overall numbers; it has to do with religious moderates and independents specifically. Picking a fight with them in an election year still doesn't seem to me to be very wise. And then he backtracked on it, which probably didn't please the liberals very much ( although let's face it, he isn't going to lose them no matter what he does ).

I don't think it's fair to say that he was picking a fight with religious moderates per se. The requirements weren't controversial and were already in state legislation in the majority of states and had been deemed constitutional in any state in which they had been challenged. The fresh outrage over Obama proposing this is that Obama was proposing it and despite all evidence to the contrary the Republicans desperately want to portray him as being hostile to Christians and Christianity. If they are "outraged" by anything he does even if it's not new, not controversial and in many cases something that they themselves used to propose then he really can't do anything without picking a fight with "moderates" now can he?

I'm more and more convinced that Republicans hate Obama for who and what he is, not for what he actually does. Liberals are just disappointed in what he is and isn't doing.

[migopod]

As a side note, I am given to understand that Arizona and Iowa passed pretty much the same legislation over ten years ago at the state level under Republican majorities. No exemptions for religious charities that aren't churches. This Republican war on religion has been raging for nearly a decade and we've not heard a peep about it.

Damn liberal media.

[Inquartata]

I don't think it's fair to say that he was picking a fight with religious moderates per se.

I'm sure that was not his deliberate intention. No doubt it just flowed out of his sense that government rules must be spread as wide as possible, and in particular his health care monster must be made as strong as it can be before the Republicans can strangle it. But the result, intended or not, was that he stepped on toes which he might have avoided. And if he didn't foresee the outcry it would provoke, someone on his staff of geniuses should have done...

And whatever the motives of the various parties, the point is that it's not smart to hand your enemies weapons.

[migopod]

To be honest I'm surprised that his people haven't yet figured out that the easiest way to provoke rightwing outrage is for them to propose historically Republican legislation. The only possible reason besides general incompetence is if they're deliberately pushing the right as far to the right as possible in an effort to make them completely fail to resonate with anything to the left of the most rabidly rightwing base. I'm leaning towards incompetence though.

Remember that "Obamacare" in its current form was is almost exactly the plan that the Heritage Foundation proposed via their conduit Newt Gingrich in the 1990's.

I'm just baffled that in the 21st century requiring providers to cover contraception is controversial government overreach while at the same time passing legislation that requires medically unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasound to which a woman does not need to consent as a precondition for all abortions is not. You'd think that Republicans passing legislation mandating what amounts to sexual assault in Virginia would be the controversial legislation...