You want this page. As you can see the first $13,000 per recipient per year is tax-free, and you also get another $1,000,000 tax-free lifetime credit. Which means that in the situation we were talking about you’d have $13,000 of your lifetime credit left after making that gift.
Thanks, I was aware of the gift tax but not the lifetime credit, and I’ll retract the example I used. Still, it seems morbid that there’s no outrage over gift taxes, but there is over estate taxes.
I’ve hijacked this thread too much and won’t discuss the issue again outside of GD.
Moderate conservative here, but I agree with everything you typed in your OP.
I would add:
- I’m all for legalizing gay marriage, although not through judicial activism.
- I’m partially pro-choice, although it stretches my sense of situational ethics to the limit. I’m for legal abortion through the first trimester, but I could never support partial birth abortion. I think Roe vs. Wade was a badly written ruling.
- I’m an atheist, and I believe in the separation of church and state.
- While I think that GHW Bush was a far better president than what we gave him credit for at the time, Dubya and Cheney are the assholes of the western world.
Just a note:
"Support a centrist, middle-of-the-road plan for illegal immigration "
If its the law of the land, then its legal immigration… I fully support legal immigration, my brother in law is one… but illegal immigration has lead to drug trafficking, gangs, identity theft ($200 buys you someones SS# in my town, and the Social Security administration can deny payment of benifits if an illegal alien is using your SS# to work - yeah America), healthcare expenses (1000s of pregent women sneak into the US to have children in a US hospital & the hospital receives no reimbursement except to charge the rest of us more) and my favorite - sancitioned murder (a Brazillian national wanted for murder is constitutionally protected from being deported from Brazil back to the U.S. for trail.)
Hoping this isn’t too much of a hijack, but is this really an idiosyncratic view? I’ve of course heard of conservatives not wanting evolution taught in school, but I’ve never thought of it as a mainstream conservative view, but rather one from a small but vocal minority.
Since a few other people have agreed with this one, I’m wondering how widespread a view, among conservatives, it really is.
In general I tend to side with the Democrats on everything but:
-I’m not anti- death penalty, especially when it comes to serial killers and mass murderers.
-I think there should be a flat income tax.
-I believe in the right to carry a gun, whether for purposes of hunting or protecting oneself (though that doesn’t mean that I’m going to feel comfortable around someone who always carries a gun on his/her person).
-I don’t like Obama very much. (I thought McCain was pretty awesome actually, until he chose Palin as his running mate and lost all of my respect.)
It’s also unrealistic and insanely costly to deport all illegals. I support a compromise plan where law-abiding, skilled illegals and their immediate families are given citizenship and than offer citizenship for all other illegals in exchange for national service.
It seems to be almost a near 50/50 divide among conservatives. And some members of SDMB automatically assumed I did not support evolution because I am conservative.
No one “supports” partial birth abortion. They are a medical necessity.
I think if more people understood partial birth abortion it’s easier to see why it should never be made illegal. It is absolutely only performed on a mother carrying a fetus that will be stillborn or a fetus that will assuredly die within minutes of birth such as a fetus w/o a brain. These severely deformed fetuses (feti?) have no higher brain functions and would be not aware of pain or sensations. I have read also read that it’s possible to anesthetize both mom and fetus if there’s a question of the child being sentient (able to register pain, etc).
They’re not even done when a mother’s life is in danger in cases where they can deliver a baby emergently and remove the immdediate danger from the mom and the baby.
This is an agonizing prospect obviously. How you would like to be carrying a stillborn fetus at 6 or 7mos. and then be told you must carry it until spontaneous labor begins then deliver a dead child? Or you realize that the trauma of carrying and delivering a baby with a deformity that is incompatible with life is too much to bear for your family or that said child is breech and will be a difficult (dead) delivery.
Partial birth abortions are only performed by maybe 1 or 2 doctors in the entire country. Maybe less since Dr. Tiller was murdered. There are extensive consultations and 2nd opinions from OB/GYN, neonatal doctors, diagnostics, geneticists, specialists, etc. You cannot walk into a clinic and decide to have a PBA, absolutely no way. Not to mention it is VERY expensive and obviously not covered by insurance. There is usually extensive travel involved because chances are a doctor won’t be found in your state.
So people get reactionary about it, understandably. But let’s all use our rational, critical thinking beyond what we’ve seen from the bloody baby parts from the anti-abortion crowd. Those are propaganda and they’re not even correct. You can’t go to a clinic, dig in the trash & take pics of baby parts. Ugh.
It’s horrific to think about for sure. You would never want that for yourself, in which case continuing a non-viable pregnancy would be your choice. But we shouldn’t remove that decision from the women, men, & families that must go through what none of us could imagine.
Hmm… I’m usually considered a “somethingsomething Conservative”, but…
-
I favor a general moratorium on the Death Penalty, excepting cases of Treason or repeated and heinous murder. Some people might favor this because “we can’t be sure” or “it’s too final”. That’s bull to me: I oppose it because I don’t trust people with that right.
-
I favor a legalization of marijuana withe same standards as for tobacco products. I also favor legalization of some other drugs within government-run clinics. Clean, safe, profitable.
-
I favor more immigration and a more relaxed INS. However, I also favor extremely strict enforcement of the laws.
-
Palin is a populist, which I generally don’t like. In fact, I actually rather like her and think I’d enjoy meeting her, though I have my doubts as to her suitability for president. The left is absolutely batshit crazy about Palin, however, and I have no provblem with sticking her in the Veep slot.
-
I am still against Gay marriage. period. At all.
However, I am open to compromise. Government-based marriage was created by the Populists and the Income Tax, and I’ve none too fond of either. We could get rid of it. We could also create a legal structure for a more restrictive Christian Marriage. But as far as I am concerned, there is no Gay marriage. It does not and cannot exist anymore than a blue red can exist.
I edited your above post for space only.
Sentient means being able process stimuli thru the central nervous system meaning a conciousness, ability feel pain, an awareness that you are in the world. A fetus in the first trimester does not possess sentience. Which is why some would call it a “clump of cells” b/c gestationally that’s what it is. A newborn isn’t even sentient.
So your moral issues apply a more “spiritual” value to a fetus. Meaning it’s something other than the result of reproductive biology i.e. made by god. Fine. But if someone doesn’t believe in a god that can ‘create’ a fetus and doesn’t apply a “moral value” to cells then she should be able to have abortion if she chooses. Up to a point of course.
I don’t like when pro-choicers say “life begins at birth”. Of course a fetus is alive, it’s cells in the process of rapid mitosis. It’s silly to argue otherwise. An amoeba is alive too but no one cries when one dies. A ‘life’ vs. living cells is different. Which is why there’s a cutoff point for having an abortion.
It’s the whole god connection; that silly belief that god “knit you in your mother’s womb”. How superior we shoud feel! God made me! Well, if you believe that then you have to believe that the moment you’re born your god declares you a sinner condemned to a burning hell. Before your first breath.
We get it. Gay marriage is an affront to your moral superiority. You’re very adamant about it. I’m not sure why other than a religious reason. There is no other reason to be against it.
You sound very conservative to me, no ‘something something’ about it.
Well, I’m an English socialist and hold the following unlikely opinions:
Guns? Fine by me. The Swiss have loads of 'em and they get along fine. It’s not like we’re Americans, after all. Obviously, though, the police shouldn’t be allowed to have them.
Abortion, don’t like it. Immigration? Leads to unemployment and depressed working class wages due to supply and demand in the Labour market, so don’t like it. Grammar schools ought to be reintroduced, selection by academic criteria rather than buying into the best schools and catchment areas. Meritocracy needs to go too, as the man who coined the word agrees. We need to get out of the EU too.
Idiosyncratic policies it might be less surprising to find an English socialist supporting, and which I do, are the legalisation of drugs (to be handed out by the NHS to those dangerously addicted), prostitution and any other victimless crimes that come up.
Call me a Poplarist Clarksonite.
Yes, my moral issues apply a spiritual value to the fetus. Whether it’s a clump of cells or whatever, I value all life. I don’t believe in god. I’m just sensitive to things that are alive. I have a sort of reverence for even plants, and yeah, amoebas. Especially amoebas. Killing living things is sometimes necessary, for example, to eat. But I think you should have a damned good reason for it. I have no rational reason for why it bothers me so much when a tree is cut down or a bug dies–it’s just how I’m wired. But then, morality itself is not rational, it’s just how we’re wired.
I would never deign to impose my religious beliefs upon people who do not share them. To the extent I believe it is morally wrong to kill a fetus, I firmly feel it is more morally wrong to bring a child into a world that doesn’t want it, or to force any person into giving birth. So I am pro-choice. But I am never going to be comfortable with abortion, and frankly the ease with which some people make that decision makes me squeamish, in the same way I’m freaked out by people who smash bugs without flinching.
***Agreed. No one is ever comfortable with abortion. I would imagine it’s never an easy decision. Some people are reckless & careless with a lot of life decisions, abortions included. That we cannot control. ***
In your original you mentioned “spiritual value” in the same vein as “sentience”. As I understood, you thought “sentience” meant “spiritual or moral value”. When it has nothing to do w/ spirituality but rather “the ability to feel or perceive subjectively” and “the ability to perceive pleasure and/or pain”.
If you have no belief in a god, I don’t understand the “spiritual” value you place on unborn life (or any life) other than you value its “potential”. To me, ‘spiritual’ would require a force/entity/being with god-like qualities that exists outside our realm of understanding. Maybe I have a different idea of ‘spirituality’. No god=no spirit.
Notice I did NOT say that I don’t value life, of course I do. The reasons I value it are just different than yours.
Not trying to be obtuse, instead genuinely curious. I come across "spiritual atheists " frequently which puzzles me given my definition of spirituality. Probably from too many years in a “spirit-filled” evangelical church that teaches Spirit=Jesus/God.
I appreciate your responses. I think we all can assert our opinions with strong wording without being dirisive, which you did
[Moderator Note]olivesmarch4th and aerie-please take the debate elsewhere.
Thank you.[/Moderator Note]
IF the 50/50 estimate is true, then it’s not really idiosyncratic, it’s just as prevelant on either side, I guess.
Anyway, I’ll look for some numbers on my own, this probably wasn’t the place to ask, since people are just going to give their opinions instead actual numbers, anyway.
It’s customary to put more padding between mutually exclusive statements.
Moving back to the main topic, the most idiosyncratic view I have is that laws and regulations should all have an expiration date of no more than 20-30 years post-enactment.
I’m a libertarian.
I support a strong national defense posture. Also, I haven’t figured out where I stand on abortion, other than the belief that a government with the power to ban it today has the power to compel it tomorrow.
I’m a gun-owning, flag-flying, pro-military, pro-nuclear-power, anti-farm-subsidy Democrat at this point.
Previous to 2008, I was a pro-abortion-rights, pro-gay-marriage, pro-drug-legalization, pro-PAYGO, pro-UHC Republican.
I think of myself as a libertarian, although that may be an unwillingness to trust either existing party, or the government for that matter. And I’m sort of opposed to the legalization of pot. If it were legal I would take off work and go get some right now. Just because I want it doesn’t mean it should be legal. I know, it’s not as bad as alcohol (agreed, not even close), the war on drugs is a waste (agreed), it’s none of the government’s business what we do in our homes (agreed). Yet … I’ve seen too many people give all their time to pot and neglect their lives, especially young people. I feel like we have to resist somehow. The current course of slowly testing the waters and loosening the pot laws gradually seems to me to be the best course.