Taxes and Charity

[birdog1960]

So what you are saying is that Mormons are still discriminating against blacks? And that Mitt Romney and other Mormons are only willing to donate money if and only if money is directed towards causes that help white people? We are talking about current topics right? If you want to use history as some sort of justification as your point, than i can say the democratic party was the one who supported slavery.

 

So I guess that means that your party is still the party of racists?

 

Of course not.

 

That would be as ridiculous as the argument that you were just trying to attempt.

1978 is pretty recent in my opinion. the civil war, not so much. the policy was apparently based on the belief of one of the most important figures in the religion. to me, beliefs in political parties and those in a religous movement are two very different things especially if they are thought divinely inspired by the latter. i'm no expert on mormonism but i think a reasonable person might well be concerned with racism in an organization with obvious racist policies in place as recently as 1978.

[Magox]

1978 is pretty recent in my opinion. the civil war, not so much. the policy was apparently based on the belief of one of the most important figures in the religion. to me, beliefs in political parties and those in a religous movement are two very different things especially if they are thought divinely inspired by the latter. i'm no expert on mormonism but i think a reasonable person might well be concerned with racism in an organization with obvious racist policies in place as recently as 1978.

Ok cool, so you are sticking with the "I'm deciding to discredit the charitable contributions because they are a racist religion" argument . Just checkin.

[/dev/null]

1978 is pretty recent in my opinion.

 

Okay, admit it dude. You still wear platform shoes and listen to the BeeGees

[3rdnlng]

until 1978, no black man of african descent was allowed priesthood in the mormon church. read brigham young's writings on this if you don't believe me. does one need to be a bigot to point this fact out?

 

 

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

 

Here's a pretty good summary of the history of the Mormon Church. Note Joseph Smiths call for the end of slavery prior to 1844 and the fact that blacks were eligible for the preisthood in Joseph Smiths time. Also note that white Mormons overwhelmingly supported lifting the ban on blacks in priesthood. Yes, the Mormon Church had its problems but seems to also do a lot of good.

 

Next let's blast the Catholic Church based on the Inquisition and somehow connect that to Newt.

[DC Tom]

1978 is pretty recent in my opinion. the civil war, not so much. the policy was apparently based on the belief of one of the most important figures in the religion. to me, beliefs in political parties and those in a religous movement are two very different things especially if they are thought divinely inspired by the latter. i'm no expert on mormonism but i think a reasonable person might well be concerned with racism in an organization with obvious racist policies in place as recently as 1978.

 

But I'll bet the NAACP's okay...

[UConn James]

I find it ridiculous that there are people who call themselves conservatives who are hating on Romney for having earned his wealth through private investment and in the past several years, living and donating to charity off of its returns rather than take in a salary from: serving as governor of Massachusetts (Romney took a salary of $1 per year); writing a book whose entire profits went to well-regarded medical charities including the Joey Fund, MS Society, Dana Farber, etc.; has tried to establish his groundwork and help candidates around the country raise $ for their campaigns (Romney did not mention this last night in reply to Brian Williams' question about his conservative/Republican Party bona fides).

 

Romney hasn't been taking money from special interests and corporations that are seeking favors in return. These places aren't in the habit of gifting $300K a year for a "historian." Newt is full of stevestojan and it's telling that he had no witty comeback last night rather than saying that Romney had 'jumped pretty far.' Romney's point last night was that Newt Gingrich has looked to cash in since he left office by helping various entities that have paid him millions to maneuver Washington D.C. to gain access and get favorable influence (read: enable them to suckle more $ from the gov't teat).

 

Does it really matter that Newt is not a "registered lobbyist"?

 

That's like saying a fox didn't technically invade the henhouse because it doesn't have a dog license.

 

Truth is, while Romney was making his money and setting up his nest egg by helping to build businesses, Newt made his money by gaming the system and setting up contacts that would pay back favors. And if he does somehow win the presidency (he's got slightly better than a snowball's chance in Hell, once you factor in Obama's Billion-dollar campaign and the inevitable leg-in-mouth moments that he'd have in 6 months that remind voters (Independents) of why they thought he was a sleaze-bag. Well, those that actually need to be reminded that he's a sleaze-bag...) Newt will have to pay those favors back.

 

On the contrary, Romney has been currying favor by helping campaigns of pols he agrees with. They owe him. Which means he should have an easier time passing his core agenda --- repealing and replacing ObamaCare; Cut, Cap & Balance, reducing taxes to encourage businesses to come back and reinvest in America --- and not having to rely on a few big SuperPAC donors who will seek to have their backs scratched b/c they saved Newt's campaign.

 

I have no problem voting for someone like Romney who's wealthy, and doesn't need to --- and the past 10 years indicates, will not --- make the presidency about increasing his personal finances. He's already got more than he can spend. Romney's goal here is to steadily lead this country back to something approaching fiscal sanity, not conduct a distractionary lip-service social agenda while it's business as usual in the Inner Loop. Because that's what has Newt and K-Street really afraid; they might actually have to do something to earn money rather than just be a siphon.

[B-Man]

 

until 1978, no black man of african descent was allowed priesthood in the mormon church. read brigham young's writings on this if you don't believe me. does one need to be a bigot to point this fact out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1978 is pretty recent in my opinion. .

 

 

So please enlighten us...............when is the cutoff date?.................1960?...1940?....1900?

 

The Catholic Church still doesn't allow female priests.......should we question Newt's donations? ...or Joe Biden's?

 

 

 

If you want to tar Mitt's donations of millions of dollars to the Mormon church as racist, just be a man and say it.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Alaska Darin]

In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case.

What they claim and what they give are not necessarily the same thing.

[Magox]

What they claim and what they give are not necessarily the same thing.

Geez, shouldnt of the Bidens of at least SAID and embellished their charitable donations by just a little bit more?

Edited January 24, 2012 by Magox

[ieatcrayonz]

if the country solely relied on charitable giving for it's societal safety net, it's likely some groups felt less desreving or desirable for whatever reason would be less supported.

 

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and say what everyone else is thinking. It is ok with me if Canadians get less of our safety net and yes they are less deserving and desirable. If we stop giving to them they will go home. Buh bye.

[birdog1960]

So please enlighten us...............when is the cutoff date?.................1960?...1940?....1900?

 

The Catholic Church still doesn't allow female priests.......should we question Newt's donations? ...or Joe Biden's?

 

 

 

If you want to tar Mitt's donations of millions of dollars to the Mormon church as racist, just be a man and say it.

 

 

 

 

 

.

interesting that you bring up catholicism. as a Catholic, i will freely admit it is a sexist institution. i don't like it but it's inarguable (as it is in the Mormon church). and while catholic charities give unquestioning aid to many in need, sometimes there are conditions. right now two big issues are birth control adn abortion. having trained in a catholic hospital, no one needs to convince me of the good these institutions do but they reserve the right (or at least were able to reserve the right in the past) to withold procedures or medicines that are against church teachings. thats fine and in my opinion, as it should be. but these procedures are lawful and patients desiring them have a right to access them. if we relied on charitable giving only, for social justice programs, access would likely be severely curtailed. whether that result is actually good isn't relevant to the larger issue being argued here.

 

and confirming your statement that you inferred but was never stated or even intended wouldn't make me more of a man in my own eyes or likely, yours.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Interesting, this is EXACTLY what Sean Hannity was blathering on about on his radio show today. Right wing talking points reach even this distant shore, lol.

 

 

But to the point, Romney can give money to his church or to other tax deductible charities, but that doesn't help with our national budget defict at all. You guys remember that? The thing you right wing bozos were crying our grand kids would be enslaved to pay off?

 

I find it ridiculous that there are people who call themselves conservatives who are hating on Romney for having earned his wealth through private investment and in the past several years, living and donating to charity off of its returns rather than take in a salary from: serving as governor of Massachusetts (Romney took a salary of $1 per year); writing a book whose entire profits went to well-regarded medical charities including the Joey Fund, MS Society, Dana Farber, etc.; has tried to establish his groundwork and help candidates around the country raise $ for their campaigns (Romney did not mention this last night in reply to Brian Williams' question about his conservative/Republican Party bona fides).

 

Romney hasn't been taking money from special interests and corporations that are seeking favors in return. These places aren't in the habit of gifting $300K a year for a "historian." Newt is full of stevestojan and it's telling that he had no witty comeback last night rather than saying that Romney had 'jumped pretty far.' Romney's point last night was that Newt Gingrich has looked to cash in since he left office by helping various entities that have paid him millions to maneuver Washington D.C. to gain access and get favorable influence (read: enable them to suckle more $ from the gov't teat).

 

Does it really matter that Newt is not a "registered lobbyist"?

 

That's like saying a fox didn't technically invade the henhouse because it doesn't have a dog license.

 

Truth is, while Romney was making his money and setting up his nest egg by helping to build businesses, Newt made his money by gaming the system and setting up contacts that would pay back favors. And if he does somehow win the presidency (he's got slightly better than a snowball's chance in Hell, once you factor in Obama's Billion-dollar campaign and the inevitable leg-in-mouth moments that he'd have in 6 months that remind voters (Independents) of why they thought he was a sleaze-bag. Well, those that actually need to be reminded that he's a sleaze-bag...) Newt will have to pay those favors back.

 

On the contrary, Romney has been currying favor by helping campaigns of pols he agrees with. They owe him. Which means he should have an easier time passing his core agenda --- repealing and replacing ObamaCare; Cut, Cap & Balance, reducing taxes to encourage businesses to come back and reinvest in America --- and not having to rely on a few big SuperPAC donors who will seek to have their backs scratched b/c they saved Newt's campaign.

 

I have no problem voting for someone like Romney who's wealthy, and doesn't need to --- and the past 10 years indicates, will not --- make the presidency about increasing his personal finances. He's already got more than he can spend. Romney's goal here is to steadily lead this country back to something approaching fiscal sanity, not conduct a distractionary lip-service social agenda while it's business as usual in the Inner Loop. Because that's what has Newt and K-Street really afraid; they might actually have to do something to earn money rather than just be a siphon.

And yet Conservative voters hate Romney, lol!!!

 

 

Go Newt!

[birdog1960]

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

 

Here's a pretty good summary of the history of the Mormon Church. Note Joseph Smiths call for the end of slavery prior to 1844 and the fact that blacks were eligible for the preisthood in Joseph Smiths time. Also note that white Mormons overwhelmingly supported lifting the ban on blacks in priesthood. Yes, the Mormon Church had its problems but seems to also do a lot of good.

 

Next let's blast the Catholic Church based on the Inquisition and somehow connect that to Newt.

did you read this piece? it contends on 2 occasions that the mormon church contiues to lie (the authors word) about it's past in regards to racism. "problems" indeed and this article does little to dispel them. i dont't know of any inquisition deniers. do you?

[ieatcrayonz]

did you read this piece? it contends on 2 occasions that the mormon church contiues to lie (the authors word) about it's past in regards to racism. "problems" indeed and this article does little to dispel them. i dont't know of any inquisition deniers. do you?

What church does Obama belong to? Some say because his middle name is Hussein that he might be a Mormon.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Funny how Mitt came out with his taxes the same day some other overly rich baffoon simply pissed away $5 million to Gingrich as if he was tipping the paperboy

 

Ya, higher taxes on the wealthy will force them to get on food stamps!

[3rdnlng]

did you read this piece? it contends on 2 occasions that the mormon church contiues to lie (the authors word) about it's past in regards to racism. "problems" indeed and this article does little to dispel them. i dont't know of any inquisition deniers. do you?

 

 

It also said some good things about them. The Inquisition was so bad it has permanently stained the Catholic church. No one should ever donate to Catholic Charities or tithe.

[....lybob]

Judge for yourself

 

4.1 mil to the Mormon Church

 

over 2 mil to the Tyler Foundation

 

Gifts of Stock

 

In addition to their church donations, the Romneys had deductions for more than $2 million in donations that are listed as noncash charitable contributions. That includes tens of thousands of shares of stock in Domino’s Pizza Inc, Senasata Technologies, Dunkin Donuts and Warner Chilcott that went to his family’s Tyler Foundation, based in Boston. Romney’s Bain Capital acquired those companies, records show.

 

It isn’t unusual for high earners like the Romneys to funnel money into charitable foundations that they control, said Lloyd Mayer, an associate dean at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

 

“If you’re wealthy, you set up your own private foundation,” Mayer said. “You get a deduction now, but you don’t have to give it all away right away. You can do it in a much more leisurely way.”

 

‘Common Strategy’

 

From a tax perspective, it makes sense for the Romneys to use shares of stock to make charitable donations, Mayer said. If someone donates shares that have increased in value, they can deduct the contribution while avoiding the 15 percent capital gains tax they would have to pay otherwise.

 

 

The Tyler Foundation made $647,500 in donations during 2010, including $75,000 to the Center for the Treatment of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis and $10,000 to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. It also donated $145,000 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, $100,000 to the George W. Bush presidential library and $10,000 to the Harvard Business School, of which Romney is an alumnus.

 

The donations to the church could help Romney among some evangelical voters who have been reluctant to support his presidential bid, said Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California.

[birdog1960]

It also said some good things about them. The Inquisition was so bad it has permanently stained the Catholic church. No one should ever donate to Catholic Charities or tithe.

i obviously don't agree with you on catholic charities but we appear to agree on the separation of taxes and charitable giving. "give to caesar what belongs to caesar...".

Edited January 24, 2012 by birdog1960

[UConn James]

Funny how Mitt came out with his taxes the same day some other overly rich baffoon simply pissed away $5 million to Gingrich as if he was tipping the paperboy

 

Ya, higher taxes on the wealthy will force them to get on food stamps!

 

Your point is made as logically as usual... which means it displays none at all.

 

You know, it would be one thing if increased taxes on "the wealthy/rich" would go toward the problem of the age --- the national debt and unfunded entitlement obligations (SS, Medicare) but any additional tax revenue would be spent on this or that department/project. We've seen that movie too many times to say that it might end differently.

 

With the institution of the income tax comes the age of debt b/c pols can't stop spending.

 

The left's solution of more tax revenue is like giving an addict more crack and expecting it to still be there in the morning.

Edited January 24, 2012 by UConn James

[Alaska Darin]

Does Romney have any ties to Jeremiah Wright?

 

Next dumb subject.