Displaying 7 Forum Posts 
  • Jun 23, 2012 08:38 PM
    Last: 8yr
    4.4k
    Since it is listed as a religious/non-profit organization, it has always filed tax-exempt status since it's beginning. It's doesn't matter who the head-banana at Revenue is, several "prosperity ministers" like Pat were investigated by the Senate over the past few years. Furthermore, being myself a Democrat, I have not seen a call to action by the party as a whole on this issue. I don't think that either party is eager to really do anything about this touchy issue anytime soon.
  • Jun 23, 2012 08:38 PM
    Last: 8yr
    4.4k
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but yes indeed 700 Club is exempt from taxation. Pat Robertson has for years used the program and his networks to push his self-serving political agenda. I don't mind when you use the media to push your agenda, that's freedom of expression, but when you use MY FAITH to satisfy your own political motives I have to call BS...
  • May 10, 2012 12:44 AM
    Last: 9yr
    2.5k
    I agree, the only real thing saving us is that the special interests throwing all of the money at the politicians are competing with one another so no one group is going to get much more of an advantage over the other. That being said, it's an awful reality all the same. We are a Plutocratic Republic now, and the age of privatization is coming in strong and fast.
  • Jun 23, 2012 08:38 PM
    Last: 8yr
    4.4k
    Yeah, that is pretty much what I figured. I still say fair is fair, and that if they insist on interfering in government then they should have to pay taxes for the privilege. If your congregation is being mobilized as a political body, you are less a church and more a PAC at that point anyway. 
  • May 10, 2012 12:44 AM
    Last: 9yr
    2.5k
    We really do need some sort of campaign finance reform that is comprehensive and enforceable. It would be wonderful if we could put an end to the centuries old corruption that has plagued our electoral process. I think, and I am obviously not original for the thought, that a good starting point would be throwing out Citizens United and putting a limit on what corporations can contribute to the campaign process.
  • Jun 06, 2012 12:36 PM
    Last: 8yr
    3.2k
    llagerdog Wrote: I'm going to let Liberal/Progressives in on a little secret.

    Unless Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, or unless it is repealed; there can be no wage growth.

    We will not be able to grow this economy if all businesses (small to large) end up being required to provide a health care plan that is too massive and over regulated to be successfully sustained.  Businesses are not hiring at this time because the future of Obamacare hangs in the balance.  No business, as I write this, can make P & L projections because of Obamacare. 

    Wage inflation would be welcomed by the Conservative community.  It's Obama and his socialistic policies need to be piled upon the ash heap of American History.




    It's not really socialism in the traditional sense or in any sense actually. Socialism would mean that the state provided the service in question, which in this case means healthcare. I too am not a fan of Obamacare, but that is because I hate the idea of people being forced to buy private coverage instead of having a public option as was the original plan advocated by President Obama and former speaker Pelosi.
  • Jun 23, 2012 08:38 PM
    Last: 8yr
    4.4k
    I think we would it would be remiss not to enforce something that's already on the books of the IRC. We could use the extra income to do any number of things, and it would be nice to see what it meant for groups like The Church of Scientology. My question is, what reason would someone have for opposing this. I would love to see what the opposition argument is for personal reasons.