First rule of government tax breaks and subsidies:
MY tax break or subsidy is an ‘important investment in our future’.
YOUR subsidy or tax break is pork.
I wonder how Obama will feel about all the tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes that have been inserted into the tax code or paid out by the government to ‘encourage minority hiring’, or to ‘encourage green jobs’, or to ‘assist low income housing developers’, or…
Which is why the tax code is not going to be reformed, no matter what Obama says.
The purpose of taxes should be to fund the necessary functions of government. It has turned to social engineering.
It’s been two years - I would have thought BHO would have some clue about how things work in Washington DC by now.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m all for reforming the tax code. Can we start by taxing churches?
In other words, an agency demonstrated success in it’s job so it was tasked with a similar and what I can judge equally important job. What am I supposed to be outraged at?
My tax law prof once said, “A tax can be simple, or it can be fair. It cannot possibly be both.” A simple tax will not account for differences in finances and lifestyle in ways that, as implemented, will seem unfair to many; a fair tax will necessarily have to be at least somewhat complex in order to account for those differences. And, of course, over the years, Congress has found it’s far easier and more direct to create tax incentives (or disincentives) than to pass laws more directly attempting to change citizens’ behavior.
There have been some big government reform efforts in the past, some of which have led to real change. The new agencies created during the New Deal; the reorganization of the military and the creation of the Department of Defense in the late 1940s; the Great Society expansion; the creation of TSA and Homeland Security after 9-11, etc. How much actually changed is certainly open for debate.
Can’t we please stop calling Al Gore “Algore”? It’s old, it’s lame, it’s just a terribly, horribly tired “joke” by now.
Pretty please?
Personally, I find it useful when people engage in that behavior, for it allows me to label them idiots and disregard anything they have to say from that point forward.
Well, how about manbearpig then?? 
-XT
That’s why I can’t ever take speeches about cutting government waste seriously. Who gets to define what’s waste and what isn’t?
I don’t even know what is supposed to be funny or even insulting about it. I didn’t call George Bush “Georgebush” despite despising the man, because it isn’t even good as an insult.
“Manbearpig” is no better. That was such an awful episode, made even worse by reminding me of the time when South Park still a hilarious, awesome, groundbreaking show. And yeah, global warming is just like a pig-bear-human hybrid, and people who think about it are clearly delusional and should just shut up. Such a remarkably perceptive piece of funny, funny satire, South Park writers.
Let’s all just give Al Gore a break. “Al” is already a nickname, for crying out loud.
Ah well…humor is in the eyes of the beholder, and obviously you are too sensitive about good old Al to see the humor there (if not in the South Park episode, which admittedly wasn’t up to the Easter Bunny episode).
C’est la vie.
-XT
Just churches, or all non-profits? If you are just going to do churches, then you will run afoul of the First Amendment.
Regards,
Shodan
No you aren’t. Secular non-profits can continue to be tax-free. Those associated with a particular faith need not.
Not at all. I’d be happy to laugh at a funny joke about Al Gore. If not funny, I’ll settle for any joke about Al Gore that’s less than ten years old.
Sensitive? No. Baffled, yes. Why would it matter how “sensitive” I supposedly am if the “joke” isn’t even comprehensible?
Would calling you “xtsm” be a joke, or gibberish? I vote gibberish. Just like “Algore” is gibberish.
But I didn’t say that ‘algore’ was funny (hell, I’ll admit it…I don’t get either the joke or how it’s a put down)…whereas the manbearpig skit was, IMHO. And regardless of if you think it’s funny or not, my reply was meant to be humorous, just a riff off of the whole hijack about Gore.
-XT
[QUOTE=The Amazing Hanna]
Not at all. I’d be happy to laugh at a funny joke about Al Gore. If not funny, I’ll settle for any joke about Al Gore that’s less than ten years old.
[/QUOTE]
When his political relevance is greater than 10 years ago, then he’ll probably rate new jokes. I think that, wisely he has chosen to remain above (or below) the fray and concentrate on his passion about the environment.
Sheesh…I can’t believe I actually have to translate all of this around here. This really must be a touchy subject.
-XT
I never actually saw the “manbearpig skit”. The fact that it was apparently an attempt to pretend that global warming is a ridiculous idea is rather disgusting, however. I suppose a skit pretending that people who think AIDS isn’t God’s wrath on the gays are stupid would also be as funny.
Good grief. So, you never saw it but just know it’s not funny because you think it’s about Global Warming denial? 
And you probably don’t laugh when they dress up folks like Nazis and do whacky (spelled this way deliberately…this is, for the humor impaired, supposed to be a ‘joke’. It might not be a FUNNY ‘joke’, but it was an attempt at what we humans call ‘humor’) things because, well, Nazis are really bad and we shouldn’t laugh at black humor. And the skit about the whale and the dolphin weren’t funny because it’s not funny to laugh at the Japanese slaughter of marine mammals. And you probably wouldn’t crack a smile about the Easter Bunny or all the times Jesus got the axe and…
Oh…wait. You probably WOULD find those things funny. Well, maybe we could agree on something after all…I found them hilarious.
-XT
Not when the “humor” is pro-Nazi, no.
And as said, I haven’t seen it so I’m going by how it has been described in this thread.