He just hates poor people.
Creationist Republican/Tea Party candidate for Maine governor Paul LePage rages against government and the assistance it gives to poor people. He’s intensely angry that anyone would have the audacity to take his money from him in order to help others. But this isn’t some pure libertarian stance he’s taking. No, as is well-known, the LePages stole a lot of money from Florida by illegally claim double-residency, thus getting their children in-state tuition at massive savings. This, as is the case with virtually all Tea Party supporters, is about greed. LePage is willing to take government assistance – welfare – from the state of Florida when it suits his wallet, but when it comes to helping anyone else he wants to put caps on benefits and slash every service under the sun.
Paul LePage is just another greedy Republican/Teabagger who is out to get his own. It has only ever been about his own wallet.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Ann LePage, Florida, Homestead Exemption, Paul LePage, Teabagger |
For the Sake of Science 
I’m not a fan of welfare of any kind. At least not the governmental sort. I am much more comfortable with the idea of food banks than with food stamps.
The main reason being I’ve just seen too many lobsters bought with food stamps and too many cartons of cigarettes and counters full of alcohol bought with cash at the same time.
The recent stories of the “cash transfer” states, Mass and California being the two that have been in the news, are having issues with the places of withdrawals of said cash. Namely cruise ships, liquor stores, strip clubs and casinos. Now to be fair there have been times I have simply walked in someplace to use an ATM or to get cash back, I’m sure there is some of that going around here also.
Giving people money and assuming they are going to spend it in their own best interest is a bad idea. If anything on this earth is true its that humans will go out of their way to act against their own self interests a lot of the time.
The instate tuition thing, well that’s hardly welfare. Its done with the assumption that you or your parents have paid taxes and thus subsidized the college already. Generally speaking of course.
If you want to call me greedy for the first group of paragraphs than you can, but you’d be out of your mind. I don’t mind helping people who need it. I mind helping people who don’t need it and take it as a free ride to get some good stuff. You answer me this:
Who’s greedy: “Tea party supporters” who want to pay lower taxes or the people who get government assistance who don’t need it and/or squander it on expensive meals?
One of the biggest wastes of government is, of course, corporate welfare. The federal and state governments give hundreds of billions of dollars away to corporations in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. Many large corporation pay absolutely no taxes upon earnings of billions of dollars.
Corporation also hide earnings by declaring them to be offshore earnings and pay no US federal or state taxes on this shunted money.
Companies have taken tax breaks built into state laws for hiring new workers. Then they do the opposite and lay off US workers and shift those jobs to foreign countries.
Giving corporation money and assuming they are going to spend it in taxpayer’s best interest is a bad idea. If anything on this earth is true its that corporations will go out of their way to act against taxpayer interests to enrich themselves a lot of the time.
Companies do not pay taxes at all. The consumer gets that cost passed on to them. A tax on a company is just another tax on the rest of us.
I agree that giving corporations, banks or any other business tax dollars is not a good idea. The fact remains that welfare recipients are just another area that is rife with misspending.
If people need food, give them food. If they need diapers, give them diapers. etc etc.
Alternately of course they make reductions in operating expenses to keep the prices the same. Most of the time this means a reduction in the largest cost of operation (for most industry’s) labor.
I agree. I never said I did not agree. I think tax loopholes are the bigger problem with government deficits and fiscal irresponsibility.
I also feel very strongly that religious institutions should not be tax exempt. Why should taxpayers subsidize cathedrals and crystal palaces? Why should taxpayers pay to heat these big buildings so that some people get to genuflect or face east? It is ludicrous. Why are these organizations given special privileges equivalent to secular charity organizations or libraries or colleges? It is well documented that only about 10% of money given to religious organizations for charity actually gets to be spent of charity as compared to 85% for non-religious organizations.
Corporations do NOT lower prices due to keeping operating costs lowered. It is competition that keeps prices lower. If there were no competing or alternative products, most companies would raise prices, regardless of the operating costs.
I didn’t think you were disagreeing. I’m glad we agree on something.
I do disagree with taxing religious institutions. People give their money freely to them and government and religion are supposed to be separate, keep them so.
Of course competition keeps prices down. If a tax were imposed on beef than beef prices would rise unless each producer were to lower operating costs or cut profits.
It’s surprising I know, but businesses exist to make a profit. They have shareholders and owners to pay and expansions to invest in. People are able to vote with their dollar, that’s competition as you mentioned.
That matches my argument. Thank you. No special tax privileges for religion, no special favored status. The religions do not provide benefits for taxpayers.
You also conveniently ignored the 10% religion effective rate vs the 85% rate of secular charities.
Companies act like citizens. They lobby for legislation to favor themselves. They supply money for political campaigns. They use public services. They should pay taxes for those privileges and services that they get without supplying something back like colleges and libraries and real charities.
Their effectiveness makes no difference in the topic of taxation so I skipped it. If effectiveness is a marker of whether or not something should be taxed, than we should tax government… I’m not sure how that would work, but you get my point I hope.
Religions do not provide benefits as you see them. Churchgoers would disagree I think.
Would not a tax on established religions affect the establishment of religions? Is that not a law regarding the establishment of religion?
Do you want churches as taxpayers? You would prefer churches to be more involved with politics?
It doesn’t matter if they agree or not. Belonging to them is not open to everyone. Can women become Catholic priests or Imans or Orthodox rabbis? No, therefore they should not be tax exempt.
No, not at all. It is equal all around.
Yes, and I already gave several reasons above.
They already are involved way too far. The asshole pope made nonsense pronouncements about Nazism being atheism instead of the truth about it coming from 2000 years of disgusting RCC dogma and doctrine. He also talked about his preferences for governments. Pastors and ministers talk all the time from their pulpits about governmental, social, political and liberty issues and try to sway their sheeple.
Taxing religious organizations the same as we would tax any other organization wouldn’t be making a law establishing religion. What we have right now, however, is a series of laws which make religion state-sponsored in effect.
Leave the pope out, he’s a head of state. That makes him a poor example. The same would go for the guy that it the archbishop of Canterbury or any other state church.
Mormons are a better example for you, as a church wholly unrelated to government. Baptists etc, etc.
I take your point however. Requiring them to pay taxes would give their actions total legitimacy. They would no longer be restricted at all by their status as tax exempt organizations.
Speaking of not paying taxes and using public things, over 50% of individuals paid no taxes this year. Personally I think everyone should pay something, a minimum of 1$ would make me happy.
I see what the both of you are saying, I simply say that it would have less effect on larger religions and more effect on the smaller ones, possibly driving them out of existence.
I can’t see any court ruling on a lawsuit brought by a church being driven out of existence by a tax (which when broken down is a tax on freedom to assemble) siding with the government on this one.
How does taxing them drive them out of business? If they have no money or property, they would pay no taxes. If they have property then they pay taxes for the public services they use. Just like the rest of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walz_v._Tax_Commission
I think you might find this case interesting. It doesn’t address the whole issue but it is an 8-1 decision. That’s a rock solid precedent and a very difficult thing for future courts to change.
In the reasoning the court stated that: