I was unaware that when you replied to ‘Paul’ on this thread that you were repling to someone who isn’t posting on it.

My bad.

I’ll check out that site. I can do mission. I’m not much for message or money.

no.. Jesus would not have that stuff. if someone gave it to Him, he would sell it and give to the poor!

If my pastor has a personal jet, he must have paid for it with his other job. We don’t pay him much, and we don’t own his home.. heck, we don’t even have our own church building.”"”

I know there are some preachers out there that are not using the money hard working folks give to drive luxury cars and live in mansions or prostituting themselves to the Republican Party and that really desire to do the right things. But too many of them only seek to make their church bigger, their bank account fatter and their political power larger. Jesus never engaged in that kind of stuff. I am not saying that a preacher should be dirt poor. He should live as his flock does- comfortable but not outrageous. And I do not have a problem with a church providing him and his family a decent home to live in or a decent automobile to drive. But mansions, Rolls Royces and private jets are way out of line. Do you think Jesus would have that stuff?

You wrote:

“The average Kansas will probably never get to see said tax code unless they make a point to. Therefore, they cannot have a mission to do anything if they can’t even describe what it is they are to do.”

Responding to your absurdity often boggles my mind, but you’ve outdone yourself.

So unless “the average Kansas” (sic) doesn’t make a point to read the tax code they’re s#it outta luck? No, “Kansas,” they tend to refer to their accountant or tax-preparer… who has looked at the tax code.

A few years ago my accountant advised me that if I got a second mortgage, paid it off in 30 days with my savings, and upped my contribution to non-profit organizations, I’d come out ahead when April 15th showed up. I’m nowhere close to the big leagues when it comes to income and taxes. But I kinda suspect someone with a billion dollars has a better tax advisor than mine.

The govenment gets its money regardless if you have tax attorneys on staff or go to your local CPA or knock on the door of H&R Block at 11 pm on April 14th.

Thing is: the government will get its money. And everyone who pays less results in people who pay more.

The Republic Party’s approach to taxation favors the people who have enough extra cash to contribute to Republic Party candidates.

When I get my tax returns back from the accontant and see how much I’m paying it’s depressing. But, as a once-a-year phenomenon, it’s probably less traumatic than going to Dillon’s every week and seeing how much money they want for my groceries.

Chances are, despite George WMD Bush’s deficit spending for a war that should not have been waged and cannot be won, a fair tax policy might finance stuff that Americans want and need.

Kev,

If my pastor has a personal jet, he must have paid for it with his other job. We don’t pay him much, and we don’t own his home.. heck, we don’t even have our own church building.

Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 11, 2007 at 04:23 PM

Another false statement.

I do believe that tax code is presented to Congress and they vote on it.

The average Kansas will probably never get to see said tax code unless they make a point to. Therefore, they cannot have a mission to do anything if they can’t even describe what it is they are to do.

Ronald Reagan never, in 8 years in office, presented a balanced budget to the Congress.

Bill Clinton achieved a balanced budget.

So which side are you on?

Unlike you (I presume), I have read David Stockman’s book. He knew at the time that supply-side economics was great poltics and disastrous policy.

Still is.

What astounds me is how relatively normal Kansans who make $40-$60 Grand a year and are doing okay somehow think it’s thier mission in life to prevent billionaires from paying their fair share of the cost of government.

Are you suggesting that we all pay the same “burden,” MonkeyHawk?

Posted by: Kev | November 11, 2007 at 03:49 PM

You must have some really odd churches in your area Kev.

It’s hard to track down our Pastors as they are either doing weddings, funerals, visiting hospitals, homes or care centers.None of them golf and one is scared of flying. Evidently, you haven’t been around the type of churches I’ve attended Kev and that’s too bad.

Tax breaks don’t necessarily result in tax revenue reduction. The Reagan TRA of 1986 fostered long-term government revenue growth for all of the 90’s. (And please insult yourself and others by trying to tell me that Slick Willie’s economic policies had anything to do with that growth.)

Secondly, tax reduction coupled with spending reduction (oh, how I wish…) means there is no difference for someone to pick up.

I have a dream….

That is absolutely false.

Well golly gosh! Let’s all just be honky dorey nice to one another and care for the sick and dying among us. Sounds really nice. Unfortunately most Christians got out of that business long ago. Christianity now is just big business. That is all it is. Those who hock it do so at a very tidy profit. Remember when, if you was a church member and you got sick or lost somebody in your family, the preacher would come to the hospital to see and comfort you? Now he is off on his own personal jet to play golf in Florida at his second home (a mansion owned by the church of course to keep it tax exempt). Christianity is great but religion is for idiots.

If you’d enrolled in Econ *102* you might have learned about how tax policy works.

Government needs money, tax money, to operate. As soon as government give some people a tax break, the rest have to pick up the difference.

Okay. So maybe it’s in the best interest of society (sounds like *SOCIALISM!!!!!!* doesn’t it?) the tax code gives people a deduction for mortgage interest or business expenses (you know, like a Cadillac Escalade).

Every deduction you take when you file your income tax return is a write-off that means somebody else is paying *your* tax burden.

Hell, you didn’t need to take Econ 102 to figure that out. You simply had to grasp 2nd Grade arithmetic.

Every tax break given to every church results in a shift of tax burden to any enterprise that is non-church.

My church doesn’t pay property tax, but can still rely on the property tax-funded fire department to respond if a blaze breaks out. Do the math, “Econ101,” assuming you’ve advanced beyond 2nd Grade.

Whether you believe in ‘em or give to ‘em, every televangelist on those cable channels you don’t pay any attention to is sucking dollars out of your wallet because *you* are paying his taxes and *he* is taking deductions allowed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Those of us who went on and took Econ 102 learned that. Too bad you didn’t pass muster.

Tough, Churches have EVERY right to get involved in every policy issue.”"”"

Churches have NO right and NO business getting involved in the affairs of state. Not as long as they are tax exempt. I am of the view however that churches should not be tax exempt. They are a business just like any other business and they should pay income and property taxes like any other business. Then they can be political.

Yes, just click on “kansassam” and it should take you there!

thanks!!

Monkey WANTS such a policy change.You can not read his post and take it any other way.”

You just changed the entire premise of your discussion with Monkeyhawk. Your earlier response only makes sense in the light of the claim that Monkeyhawk was claiming that churches could not, now, legally participate in policy discussions and promotion. You claimed Monkeyhawk was wrong about the law as it currently is. Now you are trying to argue that Monkeyhawk wants to change the law. You just moved the goal posts.

And Proudman, MPS used to post under his name on this blog. The letters are, I would presume, his initials, and when he started posting under those initials I asked him if he was the person who used to post under the previous name, and he replied in the affirmative on this blog.

I did not “out” anyone.

In light of the recent ‘outing’ here no the WEBlog, perhaps you could restrain yourself from using someone’s real name.

As for her remarks, about as much substance as a G. W. Bushism.