acemona

So then I am correct. It is okay for wealthy to stay home, but not poor ones. Just asking.

that is my question. . . It is okay for Anne to stay home and for Mitt to get the marriage tax deduction, subsidizing her staying home, but when the poor do it they are living on the government dole and are lazy and not working. This is the way it appears: Wealthy wives who choose to stay home are good hard workers and should not be criticized for it. Poor single mothers who stay home are lazy and need to get out and get a job.

I asked this question earlier: Where have you seen the truly poor advocating for a higher tax on the 1%?

What middle class?

Why? What do we need that we don't have? We have a deteriorating infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt and you would rather spend more money on another tank or jet instead of rebuilding a bridge or giving someone job training? I just cannot and will not ever understand that logic. Unless we are really going to build a star wars machine that shoots missiles out of the air there are no real threats to our safety that a higher defense budget can cover. The threats are from our disparate economic system. There is going to be unrest if it doesn't get better and it will eventually get ugly.

No you can't. A 6% sales tax does not hit 6% of your salary, it hits 6% of your purchase.

What are you talking about? Who did I paint with a broad brush. I have no idea how much money I have given to my kids at school to buy clothes, go on field trips, etc. My Goodwill donations are dropped in a box and I don't get a receipt. But who cares. It is a systemic problem. You can keep asking me for like the 4000th time about whether or not I itemize, but as little as I make it wouldn't matter anyway. The system is wrong and it needs to be changed so that people who need help get it. The gov't spends 13% of its budget on welfare and 25% on defense (more than the next 19 biggest spending countries COMBINED). Our country spends so much on health care because we are one of the few who support the salaries of insurance company CEOs who make a profit off of folks getting sick. What we need are more non-profit health insurance companies.

But churches aren't even willing to provide birth control. That is THE main reason they cannot be the answer. Churches need everyone to adhere to a specific doctrine to receive the benefits. We just fought this battle, and the churches won, so . . . they don't have to provide INSURANCE coverage for a completely legal medicine. Where else are they going to draw the line . . . will they get to decide when the life of the mother is in danger and weigh which is more important the mom or the fetus? We have a very sick man in our church, great family, American citizens who immigrated from Cameroon. He and his wife work very hard and are still in poverty - would not however let their kids get free lunch at school. He is a hard working day laborer with no insurance, got sick around Christmas and didn't go to the doctor for a while, three weeks ago they realized that 70% of his liver was eaten up with cancer. He will probably die in the next month. Churches cannot give specific money to a specific person like this, too much possibility for fraud, but even if we could, and even if we had found the cancer soon enough some of the medicine that may have helped him was going to cost 57,000,00 per month. 600,000.00 per year. Piece of cake right. Churches should be taking care of that, yet, some don't even want their insurance to cover the birth control pill. The KBC were about to launch an "investigation" and possible disassociate from my church because my preacher believes that we are ALL God's children and that there is a possibility that we MAY ALL be redeemed at some point. We decided to move our staff's retirement elsewhere. So if I believe with my preacher and my insurance and health care is through the KBC can I now lose it? Are they going to cover AIDS treatment in homosexual patients? Are they going to help gay partners adopt children like they do other parents or are we going to allow them to deny folks their civil rights b/c they don't adhere to a certain dogma or doctrine. Rick Warren should remember that Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

So how is what I wrote wrong. If you pay 35% in income taxes you are saying if you include all taxes that your rate would be about 70%. 70% of 100,000 is 70,000. You can clarify with and example if I am still not getting it, but the simple fact is that there is no way you get anywhere near 70%.

you said if you include all other taxes that you pay in the 70% range, that would mean if you make 100,000.00 and you include state, local, sales, and federal taxes that you pay about 70,000.00 in taxes a year, and I said "Wholly Cow".

You pay 70% of your income in taxes? Wholly Cow.

I asked this several years ago and don't think you guys came up with a number. How many people does this include and what % of the federal budget is spent on them.

For the last time, nobody pays "nothing". Secondly, the people who pay no income taxes do not even have a voice in the debate, they are not walking around saying to tax the upper 1% more, they don't have time to be politically involved, they are too busy trying to survive. The most "voices" that I have heard saying to tax the 1% more are actually in the 1%. I have no idea who you guys talk to who are that poor and are saying to tax the rich more. My conversation with the parents of the kids in my school who are poor never get around to the 1%, they don't even watch national news and know.

http://brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/jim-burklo-of-progressive-christ.html ???

Here is one quote: And we will know, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “Christ Jesus...and Him crucified. second: It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace third: It’s only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that He burdened -- that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, “He is Risen!” And finally: We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers, and as a nation. But other than that, there were none. The hosting of the breakfast could have been politically motivated, but he may not have considered it two months into office when he was working on other things. Again, I am not talking about the even, but the sentiment in what he said.

What war with the Catholic church? He gave in. No church dealing with only church matters has to provide insurance coverage. But that of course doesn't fit your agenda. I disagree with the Catholic Church on that policy and it is not based on pure scripture. Does that make me not a christian if I support the women's ability to get insurance to pay for preventive health care?

So you didn't read the article either?

So in other words, "no" you didn't read the article.

Did you read the article? It wasn't the event, it was the sentiment.

Nope, I know too. I believe him when he says it.

President Barack Obama Hosts Easter Prayer Breakfast (TEXT) (VIDEO)

What was political about it? It was the President of the United States talking about the national championship game. He is a fan, and the President, and even has a brother in law who coaches college bball. The only people annoyed by it, in my estimation, are those who don't want to see President Obama anytime, anywhere. He talked strictly basketball, even about his daughters playing. Holy Cow.

Too many factors to deal with.

Time stamp on Police video says it was 35 minutes after the incident, not 4 hours.

You know there is an ignore tab on this site. It has worked wonders for me. I have only "ignored" on poster ever, but the constant daily attacks just became too much.