Burn-E

Dear God do you even think before you type? Let me list out how you might be possible be wrong here. Let's start with Trump. How is he doing in Utah? What's that? You mean a third party candidate is leading both Clinton and Trump and it's apparent that Evan McMullin is likely to take that State and be the first third party candidate to actually win electoral votes since John Hospers did in 1972? Hmm, I wonder why Trump is doing so poorly in Utah? Oh, that's right, because everyone's talking about how Mormons are leading the way as Christians who reject Trump while many of the Evangelical Christians are still supporting him. Huh, that must mean that you can't actually lump religious people into one single category for how they behave. Fascinating how that works. Trump's Utah problem (an article I linked earlier): http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/ McMullin leads in Utah: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4485415-155/evan-mcmullin-takes-the-lead-in Mormons embarrassing Christians in the Religious Right as they abandon Trump: https://thinkprogress.org/mormons-embarrass-religious-right-a84f0fd78b85#.h8wrhruhv (Oh and it also mentions how Catholics - hmm, they wouldn't be religious now then would they? - are supporting Clinton). What about Jews? Who do they support? They're not religious at all are they? http://religionnews.com/2016/09/14/poll-jewish-voters-support-clinton-over-trump-by-3-1-ratio/ Huh, they support Clinton at a 3 to 1 ratio. You know what, I'm going stop there. Go get some education Kevin. You continue to spew nonsense and do not even understand what the difference is between Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.

A minority view? No my friend. Take it from the perspective that a majority of the populace barely understand the basics of economics. I'm talking about understanding what tax policy is. What every single economist in the country recognizes it to be. So yes, if you want to make it the minority view as in, how the general public understands it, then sure. But they're also the same people who think evolution is a lie. Try looking up the term: "Tax Policy" and see what you find. In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Here's what wikipedia has to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_policy Or better yet, we can go back to your article and read a little further down the page from the Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/taxation "Purpose of Taxation: During the 19th century the prevalent idea was that taxes should serve mainly to finance the government. In earlier times, and again today, governments have utilized taxation for other than merely fiscal purposes. One useful way to view the purpose of taxation, attributable to American economist Richard A. Musgrave, is to distinguish between objectives of resource allocation, income redistribution, and economic stability. (Economic growth or development and international competitiveness are sometimes listed as separate goals, but they can generally be subsumed under the other three.) In the absence of a strong reason for interference, such as the need to reduce pollution, the first objective, resource allocation, is furthered if tax policy does not interfere with market-determined allocations. The second objective, income redistribution, is meant to lessen inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth. The objective of stabilization—implemented through tax policy, government expenditure policy, monetary policy, and debt management—is that of maintaining high employment and price stability. There are likely to be conflicts among these three objectives. For example, resource allocation might require changes in the level or composition (or both) of taxes, but those changes might bear heavily on low-income families—thus upsetting redistributive goals. As another example, taxes that are highly redistributive may conflict with the efficient allocation of resources required to achieve the goal of economic neutrality." Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like my argument. Go figure.

I'm sorry but sticking to basic encyclopedia definitions is not going to help you. They reflect the common viewpoint which I've already said falls on its face. Yes, taxes raise revenues but that is their secondary rather than their primary purpose. Taxes are a tool for encouraging actors in the economy to pursue certain economic activities and discourage them from pursuing other activities. Think on that for a second. Why do we allow people to take deductions on their taxes? Take the biggest examples, specifically the deductions against donations and deductions against mortgage interest. Why are those there? Why would you increase or decrease those deductions? Think about another example, why would you tax gasoline or cigarettes? What are the driving purposes for those taxes? You have to break free from the thought that taxes are about government income and understand why they can be effective as a lever and their true purpose. I'll give you one last example. Consider the Tobin Tax. In the discussion of encouraging businesses to better invest their capital in an era where many are sitting on vast sums of cash and refusing to make bets but instead seeking returns through financial transactions, Clayton Christensen offered this thought: "One way to repurpose capital is through tax policy. Our alumni had a spirited exchange on the wisdom of imposing a Tobin tax on financial transactions to reduce high-frequency trading, which would increase illiquidity and therefore (it is thought) investment in innovation. Such a tax would be anything but simple to devise and enforce, but a growing body of academic and empirical evidence suggests it could be effective at repurposing capital by lengthening shareholder tenure." See the problem that Christensen correctly observed is driving corporations to sit on their hands while cutting costs (good for the business in the short term but terrible for creating jobs and growing the long term prospects of the business) is because they have a large number of "tourist" institutional investors who are only interested in the company as a vehicle for a quick return rather than encouraging the corporate officers to make good bets in innovations that will create new markets and increase customer satisfaction. But if you tax high frequency trading then you could force investors to take a longer view and encourages what Christensen termed "resident" investors. Think of a community he says, to whom does the village board listen most closely when it comes to decision making? Those with a vested interest in the success and health of the community or those who drop in for a quick stay? This Tobin tax is an excellent example of thinking about taxes in the proper light. The point is, there are a wide variety of avenues that a government can pursue in order to collect revenues. The right question is what tax vehicles will encourage the right economic activities given the current macro economic environment and the immediate needs of the country and its citizens? Once you answer those questions then you can examine who and what to tax at what rates. You have to figure this part out Alden before you can even begin to grasp why any particular 501(c)(3) is worthy of receiving those benefits.

No, I'm not arguing that taxation is used as a tool to maintain wealth distribution. I'm arguing that taxation along with printing money are the two levers the government uses to regulate the economy. Monetary and Fiscal policies. And you have to think about how and why they are effective levers in order to understand what makes for good and bad tax policy. As Erik said, printing money would could lead to unacceptable levels of inflation so instead we levy taxes in order to avoid inflation. But sometimes the Fed prints money instead, especially when facing a deflating economy and when things are especially bad the government reduces taxes. For the inverse scenario increasing taxes and restricting the money supply achieves the control of inflationary pressures. The point is, taxation is a tool but do you really understand its fundamental purpose in our economy? If you think the government needs taxes in order to fund its activities then you're going to make bad decisions on how and what to tax.

I'm not baiting on anything but if printing money devalues it and creates inflation while taxes gather existing wealth then what taxes really do is not pay for programs but instead levying them regulates the economy. I'll let you guys ponder that comment because that's not how anyone talks about taxes. And it's certainly not a pointless consideration when it comes to long term policy. Because unless you think about taxes in the correct light, as a lever for regulating the economy, only then can you effectively evaluate the types of taxes and who they impact and why. And unless you can think about it in that way then this discussion of taxing churches is a pointless exercise because it's based on faulty thinking that will always lead to bad policy decisions that can have disastrous results.

I've made my point. If you want to debate religion take it back to that thread. Let's examine Kevin's point on taxes. But why does the government need to take money from you Kevin in order to pay for those programs? We're talking about the Federal Government where if you don't recall the Treasury resides. Whose signature is on that yuppie food stamp you pulled out of your wallet to pay for lunch today? Telling me the government uses taxes to pay for roads and schools is failing to appreciate that the Federal government prints money. So why do they need yours again?

Keep trying Alden. I think your arguments as they stand are extremely half baked. There's little room between the points I made and the letter encouraging members to vote against assisted suicide and marijuana legalization. Religion has long held a role of teaching and speaking out on moral issues as a voice within society.

What all of you fail to understand is that historically taxation was used in other countries as a means to stifle and even silence religions. By levying taxes that were too high of a burden governments were able to seize land and property and even imprison the leaders. There's a deep historical basis as one of the fundamental principles of the 1st Amendment including protecting religious speech by not taxing those organizations. As for why discourage assisted suicide it is about the messages this sends to society: 1. It removes protection for feeble seniors whose children or heirs who often have power of attorney and can (and have in States like Oregon) use the opportunity to have them "relieved of life" for less than homorable reasons. 2. It actually leads to a significant uptick in juvenile suicides. There is a direct correlation between the law being on a State's book and a hike in younger suicides. It cheapens life and actually reduces a friction that younger adults and teens consider when contemplating their own lives. So it is far more than just the idea of protecting our own community but also examining the strength of the moral fabric of society and how such a law weakens it to the detriment of the weakest. Now Kevin, yes some members of the Saud family are funding Islamic extremists but my point was try being something other than a Muslim in SA and see how freely you can live. Even consider the lack of freedoms that they offer for Muslims. This is because there is no freedom of conscience and religion. I never said religion was a victim. What I said was the founders and wise leaders who followed recognized the benefits to diversity and morality in our country that are enjoyed by protecting religious rights to worship who or what you may how you desire. To fail to understand that is to ignore history.

Kevin, you should move to China or Iran or Saudi Arabia where religion is forbidden or heavily restricted and you'll soon learn what an important impact the freedom to worship as you choose has on development of those freedoms you like to throw around as being so fundamental. Do you even understand why the State (Federal Government) collects taxes? Let's have that discussion. Why does the government collect taxes?

Kevin doesn't understand the principles considered for evaluation for a church and how that is distinguished from other 501(c)(3)s. I'd itemize them but it will go right over his head. You're right about #1, churches should not tell their adherents who to vote for. But, they certainly can educate them on the issues and encourage them to vote against legislation they consider immoral and they are allowed to advertise and lobby so long as it is not a substantial portion of their activities. Let's just state what the IRS has said on their own tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations: "Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business." https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf The reason for this is because it has long been determined that church-state separation is not meant to create a religion-free civil society or public sphere. Instead, its purpose is to safeguard our fundamental right to religious freedom, by limiting the regulatory powers of government and by distinguishing between political and religious institutions. Taxation is the power to control and to destroy and the 1st amendment is damaged when government has the power of the purse over religion. As Hillary said, It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Kevin is not in charge of the law in this country.

Go get yourself some education Kevin. You're preening like an ignorant parrot. There's a difference between campaigning on behalf of a politician and speaking out on a moral issue. The latter is a foundational element of the 1st Amendment. And such speech does not contradict the requirements to retain tax exempt status. Religious institutions are not taxed as an element of that freedom of speech that drove our founders to revolt against England and the Anglican Church.

Mark my words, Evan McMullin is going to win Utah. And if Hillary doesn't close the deal against Trump then Kevin will have his nightmare scenario with a Mormon President.

Speaking of prancing moose, Dave Barton finally got around to submitting his emblem to Blipshift to be printed on a t-shirt: https://www.blipshift.com/products/swede-steed?utm_source=blipshift+Updates&utm_campaign=86db42b4d2-Swede_Steed_10_5_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0513fd2cb9-86db42b4d2-345795593&mc_cid=86db42b4d2&mc_eid=1bdcead669 As always, these things are a get them while they last kind of thing. 2 days and counting before it goes poof.

Kevin, again you're using an example of one misguided member to tar an entire faith. I'll put you on ignore if you persist with spreading ignorance. Everyone I know is shaking their heads at how this former Senator presents himself. He represents an extremely fundamentalist view and I certainly wouldn't vote for him.

FS or Hardtail, you had to work to get to under 25#. This Klein sits at 23.9 without any CF components which is pretty amazing in the face of today's tech and it retailed $800 back in 1996 which was a killer deal at weight for the dollars spent. This one was one of the last pre-Trek acquisition bikes. And yes I had the seat jacked up to relieve pressure on the knees while riding combo asphalt and single track that day.

The arsonist has oddly shaped feet

How exactly did Hillary kill 3 people Gary? Please identify who you're talking about and how she is culpable for their deaths.

Trump got his ass handed to him last night. Guess reality TV skills will only carry you so far. Expect him to tell Kellyann Conway she can go to hell and to unleash his inner demons for the next debate. This can only get "better."

Glenn Beck is a talking Sleestack

Ted Cruz is a CHUMP

Democratic Socialism is Socialism just with a sugar coating on it to ease the swallowing. Same end result it just takes longer to get there. Call a spade a spade. But the big difference between Stein and Sanders is that he's not really a Democratic Socialist. He's really a reincarnation of FDR as a New Deal Democrat. Stein is a full blown Socialist.

Kevin, go read up on Marx's Communist Manifesto. Stein is leveraging the dialectic as a means for driving social change. Communism's ultimate goal is Socialism. I don't throw terms around lightly like many do in the political arena. I've studied and read the source materials so when I call her a Communist it's not an epithet it's an accurate description of the political philosophy that drives her approach to what she advocates.

Jill Stein is a Communist - she advocates what can be described as nothing less than a Marxist policy plan. Plain and simple. Since you were totally on board with Bernie I can appreciate why she is attractive to you. I'm not a liberal, Kevin. I'm a socially minded Conservative. A True Republican from back when that had any meaning in the mid 1980's. The GOP has lost its way and so my only hope is that enough time in the wilderness will bring them back to their senses. Either that or the party splits and we come up with a new Party. I've spent enough time in politics to understand that ultimately it's who holds the reins of power that matters. So that is where I focus my vote.

Kevin, that is possibly the most intelligent thing you've written in this entire thread. I take a more tactical and pragmatic view in considering that, as President Obama once declared to Paul Ryan, "Elections have consequences..." and therefore while you should definitely vote your conscience you also have to recognize that ultimately someone is going to win and you and the rest of the country will have to live with the consequences for the next 2 or 4 years. So I prefer to look at it with a view to what the long term impact is and apply my vote accordingly. Which is why I'm voting for Hillary. She is the least bad of the two candidates who will actually be elected. But the reality is that most of your votes don't really matter. Because it all comes down to a few select counties in a few battleground States where the actual decision is going to be made. If you don't live in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconsin then absolutely vote but realize you're not making the final decision.

This is one of my absolute favorite bike tools. Telescoping speed lever. Makes tube and tire changes an absolute cinch. For the life of me I can't understand why they no longer sell them. http://kk.org/cooltools/crank-brothers-1/