$8 billion hmmmmm wonder how many people could be fed in the SNAP program ?
Here is a look at our future if the emperor gets his way :
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/wo...s&emc=rss&_r=0
|
$8 billion hmmmmm wonder how many people could be fed in the SNAP program ?
Here is a look at our future if the emperor gets his way :
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/wo...s&emc=rss&_r=0
And right on cue another post demonstrating the point of this thread. You don't get to base your arguments on positions you assign to me that are not based in reality, OK? In other words, you're just making sh*t up, it isn't reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Just like yours, but at least it isn't contradictory. One post you rail about subsidies for big oil and cutting food stamps and the next you defend giving money to big oil that could have been spent on food stamps.Quote:
Your outrage is selective.
If you guys care about children and education maybe less money should be wasted on college sports. The highest paid public employee in pretty much all states is a university sports coach. Priorities folks.
The biggest problem is that they are 'public paid' . Besides that I don't care how much coaches make.
Naw... its the University President... after all they do such difficult work to earn those Millions of dollars a year...
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18r8.../ku-bigpic.png
Don't have to look to far to see that the priorities are a little messed up.
THey do a lot more work than the University president does... particularly considering the amount of money the football program brings into the College Coffers. I'm guessing th Girls badmitten team brings in less than the janitorial services for the locker room cost.
facts are good, link me up.Quote:
considering the amount of money the football program brings into the College Coffers
I wouldn't bother, you have an aversion to facts and reality - just like Democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You have to fed the poor kids old people working poor and their families. You have to invest in future technology. Some American already live with the high and rising energy costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have assigned no position to you, merely asking, so don't get all bent out of shape about it. I get you like eagles and I like ducks, but I like eagles too. The Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska, and the Colorado River, and the Ogallala Aquifer ARE REALITY.Quote:
QUOTE by speechlesstx;And right on cue another post demonstrating the point of this thread. You don't get to base your arguments on positions you assign to me that are not based in reality, OK? In other words, you're just making sh*t up, it isn't reality.
I have to look that up and confirm your version of my position, and will clarify if needed. But food stamps are needed as more people have to adjust to this jobless recovery, and the solution is jobs that pay enough not to need food stamps. Go talk to your cheap labor job creators. Not the government.Quote:
Just like yours, but at least it isn't contradictory. One post you rail about subsidies for big oil and cutting food stamps and the next you defend giving money to big oil that could have been spent on food stamps.
Easy to Google them up...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
» Which Football and Basketball Programs Produce the Largest Profits?
College Football's Most Valuable Teams - Forbes
The only reason NY's isn't a coach is because our state colleges teams suck
Well you did pick one of the only one that comes ahead, otherwise:
AD salaries are warping the economy of college sports. | SportsonEarth.com : Patrick Hruby Article
This could be on the Obamacare thread but it's so ridiculous it belongs here.
As I've said before it should be blatantly obvious that forcing nuns to buy contraceptive coverage is beyond the pale, but I do get it, Democrats prefer the government be the source of all benevolence. But it is especially infuriating to not only watch their utter disregard for the first amendment, but to listen to insufferable lectures on helping the poor - while penalizing those who do. Really? Do these ladies really need to buy contraceptive coverage? What in the hell is wrong with someone who would impose such an outrageous burden?Quote:
Little Sisters of the Poor sue over Obamacare fines, contraception requirement
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized a contraception mandate that ignores the fact groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor are religious organizations, according to a lawsuit filed to protect them against fines for refusing to comply with an Obamacare mandate.
"We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government's program to provide access to abortion-inducing drugs,” Sister Loraine Marie said of a class-action lawsuit filed against the mandate on behalf of multiple religious organizations that provide health benefits.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The choice of jurisdiction is critical: The Colorado district court falls under the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and thus is governed by that court's precedent in most cases.
A 10th Circuit panel ruled earlier this year that the owners of Hobby Lobby did not have to comply with the HHS mandate (that lawsuit was also filed by the Becket Fund). President Obama's attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 10th Circuit's ruling.
“The Sisters should obviously be exempted as ‘religious employers,’ but the government has refused to expand its definition,” Becket Fund senior counsel Mark Rienzi said.
“These women just want to take care of the elderly poor without being forced to violate the faith that animates their work. The money they collect should be used to care for the poor like it always has -- and not to pay the IRS,” he said.
The law sets a bare minimum for EVERYBODY, whether you use it or not. If you don't use the coverage, you don't pay for it. It's in court, let them decide, but if they want a special policy, then they have to pay for it. I think you will find that it's more expensive and saves nothing even if they underwrite there own insurance.
Come on Tal, the whole idea is freakin' ridiculous. and obviously you still have NO regard for our clearly enumerated constitutional rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
LSP Comments on HHS Mandate: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
They are a corporate entity, not a CHURCH by their own words, and IRS filings. Religious though they may be.Quote:
The proposed "religious employer" exemption does not cover our homes because the exemption extends only to group health plans offered by a nonprofit entity referred to in 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A)(I) or (iii).4 Those provisions relate to the obligation to file an informational return and exempt "churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches"5 and "the exclusively religious activities of any religious order"6 from this obligation. Each of our homes is a separate corporate entity that files an annual Form 990 for purposes of compliance with the tax code. Because each home is a "large employer" under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and is not exempt from filing under the Code provision that currently defines the scope of the proposed "religious employer" exemption, the group health plan offered by each home is not exempt from the HHS Mandate under the proposed exemption.
Churches HAVE to incorporate to protect themselves and as your post notes comply with the tax code, it does not make them a business. Geez.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:
Nahhh... A businessman incorporates to protect HIS assets from being at risk if his corporation is sued... But, I don't think church people are WEALTHY, or at least they SHOULDN'T be, so there's NOTHING to protect by incorporating... Besides, they don't OWN the church. They're EMPLOYEES, and their assets are NOT at risk. In fact, the ENTIRE church's assets ARE at risk EVEN if they're incorporated. So, they gain NOTHING by doing so.Quote:
Churches HAVE to incorporate to protect themselves and as your post notes comply with the tax code, it does not make them a business. Geez.
If a church is going to ask the state to give it certain protections, then it has to pay the piper. Look. A church doesn't HAVE to ask for permission to BE a church. But, if it asks the state to call it a CORPORATION, then it's a CORPORATION...
Excon
Why are they not tax exempt as a church is? Are they non profit, or for profit.
Definition of corporation (n)
Bing Dictionary
Cor·po·ra·tion
[ kàwrpə ráysh'n ]
1.group regarded as individual by law: a company recognized by law as a single body with its own powers and liabilities, separate from those of the individual members.
2.local governing authority: the governing authority of an incorporated municipality such as a city or town
3.group acting as single entity: a group of people acting as a single entity
Synonyms: company, business, firm, establishment, concern, organization, house, conglomerate, group
By definition they are a business for whatever reason. They want to make profit with the benefit of a church.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM. |