Michelle pimping the airwaves
Steve B
foundation for Haiti. Why doesn't she take some of her own money and pass
it along? Or not go on a trip with her 200 person entourage?
Wait, I know the answers.
Steve
azotic
"Steve B" <desert...@fishmail.net> wrote in message
news:otgv27-...@news.infowest.com...
Hillary & Bill allready did that photo op. How many haitions died
because security shut down the airport for hours so bill could get a photo
of himself unloading 1 box off that plane?
Best Regards
Tom.
Too_Many_Tools
So Steve...would this happen to be a POLITICAL POST?
You know the kind that you like to WHINE about.
Now I take it that you disapprove of helping people in
distress...dying as we speak because of no water, food or medical care
because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You come across as the typical self righteous SOB who doesn't care
about anyone but himself.
So did you disapprove when Laura Bush was drumming for donations after
Katrina?
Of course didn't you good little racist.
TMT
Ignoramus29432
Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
earthquake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/obamas-donate-15000-to-ha_n_430910.html
i
Eregon
A Democrat spending her/his OWN money?
Sheer, Stark, Supreme HERESY!!!
Ignoramus29432
Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
earthquake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/obamas-donate-15000-to-ha_n_430910.html
Considering that their net worth is likely to be at most a few million
dollars (Obama family was worth 1.3 million in 2007), this is a
substantial amount.
I donated $50.
i
Ignoramus29432
Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
earthquake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/obamas-donate-15000-to-ha_n_430910.html
i
Gunner Asch
That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?
Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
not impressed.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Gunner Asch
They probably shook down the WH staff and the Secret Service teams.
Gunner Asch
I donated $100. The dogs are eating leaner this month.
Shrug. Wife wasnt really happy either.
Ignoramus29432
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:00 -0600, Ignoramus29432
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-01-25, Steve B <desert...@fishmail.net> wrote:
>>> Disgusting. Michelle Obama pimping the airwaves for donations to a
>>> foundation for Haiti. Why doesn't she take some of her own money and pass
>>> it along? Or not go on a trip with her 200 person entourage?
>>>
>>> Wait, I know the answers.
>>
>>Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
>>earthquake.
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/obamas-donate-15000-to-ha_n_430910.html
>>
>>i
>
> That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?
>
> Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
> not impressed.
>
If they net $3 million per year, then $15,000 is 0.5% of their
annual income.
For comparison purposes, for a guy with a modest $100,000 per year
income, 0.5% would be a $500 donation.
This is a very generous donation by my standards.
i
Ignoramus29432
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-01-25, azotic <azo...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Steve B" <desert...@fishmail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:otgv27-...@news.infowest.com...
>>>> Disgusting. Michelle Obama pimping the airwaves for donations to a
>>>> foundation for Haiti. Why doesn't she take some of her own money and pass
>>>> it along? Or not go on a trip with her 200 person entourage?
>>>>
>>>> Wait, I know the answers.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hillary & Bill allready did that photo op. How many haitions died
>>> because security shut down the airport for hours so bill could get a photo
>>> of himself unloading 1 box off that plane?
>>
>>Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
>>earthquake.
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/obamas-donate-15000-to-ha_n_430910.html
>>
>>Considering that their net worth is likely to be at most a few million
>>dollars (Obama family was worth 1.3 million in 2007), this is a
>>substantial amount.
>>
>>I donated $50.
>>
>
>
>
How did you donate? What organization?
i
Michael A. Terrell
That $15,000 is a tax writeoff, and less than they waste any given
month.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
rangerssuck
29432.invalid> wrote:
> On 2010-01-25, Eregon <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote:
>
> >news:otgv27-...@news.infowest.com:
>
> >> Disgusting. Michelle Obama pimping the airwaves for donations to a
> >> foundation for Haiti. Why doesn't she take some of her own money and
> >> pass it along? Or not go on a trip with her 200 person entourage?
>
> >> Wait, I know the answers.
>
> >> Steve
> > A Democrat spending her/his OWN money?
>
> > Sheer, Stark, Supreme HERESY!!!
>
> Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
> earthquake.
>
>
> i
And once again the wingers show their disgusting lack of respect for
anybody who isn't one of them. To borrow a phrase from Hillary
Clinton, If Obama walked on water, the wingers would say "he can't
swim."
Ignoramus29432
That is a nasty comment.
All charitable donations are tax deductible. Not just this particular one.
Does it mean that the person giving them does not show generosity?
No, it just means that a part of the donation can be recovered as a
tax writeoff.
i
Steve B
"Ignoramus29432" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote in message
news:5c6dnUvhm-6lbMDW...@giganews.com...
Barely a dress for Michelle. Or a suit for Barry. Chump change from a
chump.
Steve
Steve B
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4B5E2399...@earthlink.net...
Or any given evening.
Steve
Ignoramus29432
Assuming that a comment in this thread is true and they make 3 milion
dollars this year, $15,000 amounts to 1/2 a percent of their
income. For a regular person with 100,000 per year income, 0.5% would
be a $500 donation. Not chump change at all.
i
Wes
>Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
>earthquake.
Good for them. This thread is getting pretty ugly. That is so sad.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
Red Cross. Perhaps not the best..shrug..but one that has spread the
wealth around pretty well historically.
I was driving along a street and on the radio they were telling about
where in the LA area were donation points. I drove to the closest and
handed them a $100 in cash.
Ive been know to do this in other disasters. This is why I still not got
the belt for my Clausing lathe. Shrug. It went to a better use.
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
<G>
Gunner Asch
Actually Iggy..many Americans donate 10% of their income to charity or
to their church. Having all of your working expenses covered by the tax
payers and being worth millions, and only kicking in $15k..is really not
much.
Hell..Limbaugh donated $5 million last year..and he is an Evil
Republican
Ignoramus29432
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.
I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.
i
Ignoramus29432
>>dollars this year, $15,000 amounts to 1/2 a percent of their
>>income. For a regular person with 100,000 per year income, 0.5% would
>>be a $500 donation. Not chump change at all.
> to their church. Having all of your working expenses covered by the tax
> payers and being worth millions, and only kicking in $15k..is really not
> much.
It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html
In 2006, Americans donated 2.2 percent of their average disposable, or
after-tax, income, a figure above the 40-year average of 1.8
percent. Brooks told USINFO that he sees over the past 50 years “a
trend toward greater charitable giving†in the United States.
The Obama family gave much more than average.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
i
Eregon
news:5c6dnUXhm-7ab8DW...@giganews.com:
> Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
> earthquake.
Yah - leftover DNC-supplied "Presidential Campaign Fund" donations from US
Taxpayers who checked the "Yes" boxes on their 1040s.
Never forget that leftover campaign donations are considered as an IRA by
the Infernal Revenue scumsuckers.
John R. Carroll
So will I.
I'll even throw in a bag of Darrell Lea Original.
Btw, his "wife" or whatever it is, split a $25,000.00 dissability settlement
with him, collects a dissability check every month and the both of them are
recieving food stamps.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Especially not if you are Haitian.
They could as easily have given nothing.
In fact, given the criticism I see here, they could have given nothing more
easily.
--
John R. Carroll
Michael A. Terrell
If it was out of generosity, they wouldn't have disclosed the amount.
It was a political move, nothng else.
> No, it just means that a part of the donation can be recovered as a
> tax writeoff.
No, it doesn't. If the annual amount is too small, you get no
writeoff.
Too_Many_Tools
> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
> > On 2010-01-26, Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:37:40 -0600, Ignoramus29432
> >> <ignoramus29...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:00 -0600, Ignoramus29432
>
> >>>>> On 2010-01-25, Steve B <deserttra...@fishmail.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Disgusting. Michelle Obama pimping the airwaves for donations
> >>>>>> to a foundation for Haiti. Why doesn't she take some of her own
> >>>>>> money and pass it along? Or not go on a trip with her 200
> >>>>>> person entourage?
>
> >>>>>> Wait, I know the answers.
>
> >>>>> Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
> >>>>> earthquake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> i
>
> >>>> That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?
>
> >>>> Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very
> >>>> very not impressed.
>
> >>> If they net $3 million per year, then $15,000 is 0.5% of their
> >>> annual income.
>
> >>> For comparison purposes, for a guy with a modest $100,000 per year
> >>> income, 0.5% would be a $500 donation.
>
> >>> This is a very generous donation by my standards.
>
> >>> i
>
> >> Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
>
> >> Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
>
> > I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS
> > standards.
>
> > If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
> > generosity.
>
> So will I.
> I'll even throw in a bag of Darrell Lea Original.
>
> Btw, his "wife" or whatever it is, split a $25,000.00 dissability settlement
> with him, collects a dissability check every month and the both of them are
> recieving food stamps.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And wonders how Gunner has $100 on him when his creditors are not
being paid?
TMT
Ignoramus29432
> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
>>earthquake.
>
> Good for them. This thread is getting pretty ugly. That is so sad.
When Steve B posted his original post, I looked for "obama family
donation haiti" and things like that, and could not find anything. At
first I thought that it was rather disingenious for the President to
not contribute anything. Then I looked a little bit more and found
that Huffington Post article.
i
Ignoramus29432
What do you mean, considered as an IRA? I do not understand.
i
Steve B
15,000/1,300,000 = ?%
15,000/3,000,000= ?%
What is Barry's income?
What % of Barry's income is $15,000?
And how much does he and Michelle deduct per year for underwear?
Someone do the math for me. I get something times 10 to the minus something
power.
Steve
Ignoramus29432
They are required to disclose it.
>> No, it just means that a part of the donation can be recovered as a
>> tax writeoff.
>
> No, it doesn't. If the annual amount is too small, you get no
> writeoff.
>
If you itemize, as I would expect the Obama family to do, then any
amount of charitable contributions reduces taxable income.
i
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
of the year.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>On 2010-01-26, Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:32:50 -0600, Ignoramus29432
>>>Assuming that a comment in this thread is true and they make 3 milion
>>>dollars this year, $15,000 amounts to 1/2 a percent of their
>>>income. For a regular person with 100,000 per year income, 0.5% would
>>>be a $500 donation. Not chump change at all.
>> Actually Iggy..many Americans donate 10% of their income to charity or
>> to their church. Having all of your working expenses covered by the tax
>> payers and being worth millions, and only kicking in $15k..is really not
>> much.
>
>It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>generous).
>
>http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html
>
>In 2006, Americans donated 2.2 percent of their average disposable, or
>after-tax, income, a figure above the 40-year average of 1.8
>percent. Brooks told USINFO that he sees over the past 50 years “a
>trend toward greater charitable giving�? in the United States.
>
>The Obama family gave much more than average.
>
>http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html
>
Right....oh hell yes
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers
Q. Do Americans mostly give because our tax system rewards it?
A.The U.S. federal government and state governments make monetary gifts
to public charities tax deductible. So if a taxpayer gives $1,000 and
pays a tax rate of 35 percent on her last dollar of income, her donation
saves her $350 in taxes.
The amount of taxes not paid because of donations is huge: it represents
the single largest government �matching grant� program ever. The
Internal Revenue Service estimates that in 2002, individuals donated and
deducted $142.4 billion in monetary and in-kind gifts. Breaking this
figure down by income class and applying 2002 marginal tax rates for
these classes, we can estimate that this represents foregone income tax
revenues�and hence a government subsidy to nonprofit organizations�of
about $37.2 billion.
Still, tax deductibility is actually irrelevant for most people. IRS
records show that only about a third of people who file tax returns
itemize their deductions�which means that most Americans (particularly
middle- and lower-income citizens) don�t even claim the deductions to
which they are entitled. Even among households earning over $120,000 per
year, only about 40 percent itemize their deductions. Furthermore,
research shows that virtually no one is motivated meaningfully to give
only because of our tax system.
Q. How much do the rich in America give, compared with everyone else?
A. In order for a person to give money away, he or she must have it in
the first place. Not surprisingly then, income and charitable giving in
America are positively related. For example, in the year 2000, families
earning $20,000 or less gave an average of about $450 to charity, while
families earning more than $100,000 gave away an average of a bit more
than $3,000. The top 10 percent of households in income are responsible
for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and
households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all
charitable donations. The American rich are generous, on average.
Low-income working families are the most generous group in America,
giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on average.
Yet when we measure monetary giving as a percentage of income in order
to ascertain the level of one�s �sacrifice,� we find a surprising
result: it is low-income working families that are the most generous
group in America, giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on
average. This compares to about 2.5 percent among the middle class, and
3 percent among high-income families.
One common explanation for the fact that the working poor give so much
is, not surprisingly, religion. The working poor tend to belong to
congregations that are relatively literal about Biblical injunctions to
give. Data from 2000 show that these poor American families were roughly
twice as likely as middle-class families to be Seventh-Day Adventists,
Pentecostals, or Jehovah�s Witnesses. They were also significantly less
likely to belong to more �mainline��and less stringent�denominations
such as Episcopalian, Methodist, and Presbyterian.
Who gives the most in America: conservatives or liberals?
A. There is a persistent stereotype about charitable giving in
politically progressive regions of America: while people on the
political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to
be very charitable toward the less fortunate. In contrast, those on the
political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus
the charitable ones. Understanding �charity� in terms of voluntary gifts
of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype
is wrong.
The fact is that self-described �conservatives� in America are more
likely to give�and give more money�than self-described �liberals.� In
the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30
percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And
this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of
income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data
earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.
These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In
2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year,
and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were
�conservative� or �extremely conservative� made up less than one-fifth
of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put
this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like
conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by
nearly half.
One major explanation for the giving discrepancy between conservatives
and liberals is religion. In 2004, conservatives were more than twice as
likely as liberals to attend a house of worship weekly, whereas liberals
were twice as likely as conservatives to attend seldom or never. There
are indeed religious liberals in America, but they are currently
outnumbered by religious conservatives by about four to one.
>
>i
Ignoramus29432
I see.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus29432" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote in message
Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> scrawled the following:
>I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.
So, you guys donated to Haiti. Did you also donate to New Orleans at
Katrinatime? Whatever happened to donations to U.S. disasters? Our
citizens still need local charity, guys.
---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.
pyotr filipivich
about Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:31:22 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
> Low-income working families are the most generous group in America,
>giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on average.
>
>Yet when we measure monetary giving as a percentage of income in order
>to ascertain the level of one�s �sacrifice,� we find a surprising
>result: it is low-income working families that are the most generous
>group in America, giving away about 4.5 percent of their income on
>average. This compares to about 2.5 percent among the middle class, and
>3 percent among high-income families.
>
>One common explanation for the fact that the working poor give so much
>is, not surprisingly, religion. The working poor tend to belong to
>congregations that are relatively literal about Biblical injunctions to
>give.
Yep. Back around 1950, my Dad was a seminarian, and was student
preaching at parish in Oakland (CA) back when it was working class and
not hell-hole. My Dad noticed it was a poor working class parish, yet
the Church was really "nice". ?How did they do that? He was told, in
essence, that most of them were reformed drunks, and had thought
nothing of dropping ten - twenty bucks at the tavern on a Saturday
night. (And those were 1950 dollars, too). So, dropping a twenty in
the offering plate on a Sunday was not a "big deal".
Amazing how much money is available when you stop "sinning".
I also recall hearing a story about LBJ when he was running for
state office in Texas, during the depression. He'd be out at a farm,
no electricity, kids drinking 'blue milk' (a couple stages past
"skim"), and other signs of poverty - and be told "well, times are
tough, but we're getting by. You ought to head over to the Jones',
they are in real need."
> Data from 2000 show that these poor American families were roughly
>twice as likely as middle-class families to be Seventh-Day Adventists,
>Pentecostals, or Jehovah�s Witnesses. They were also significantly less
>likely to belong to more �mainline��and less stringent�denominations
>such as Episcopalian, Methodist, and Presbyterian.
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
pyotr filipivich
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
I just got my tax forms - I made what the Obama's donated to
charity. I know I wrote a check for $100, and I'm sure there was more.
But ... I'm sorry to see rich fat cats like them not giving their
share back to the community.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I made it to 2010 and all I got from the SciFi Books of my youth
was the lousy dystopian government�
pyotr filipivich
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
>>
>>I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
>>
>>If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
>>generosity.
>>
>>I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.
>
>I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
>even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
>that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
>of the year.
There's the tax write off, and there are alms. Shoot, I don't
even keep track of the "spare change" I hand out. "Let's get some
lunch, I'm buying."
Gunner Asch
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:42:58 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus29432
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> scrawled the following:
>
>>I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.
>
>So, you guys donated to Haiti. Did you also donate to New Orleans at
>Katrinatime? Whatever happened to donations to U.S. disasters? Our
>citizens still need local charity, guys.
No..I didnt donate to New Orleans. I did however donate up the coast
east a bit.
Those who were so damned stupid to be stuck in NO..should have died
there. Called survival of the fittest.
A friend of my dad is a property owner on the Gulf coast in Florida..and
I sent him $200 to help out in local emergencies. As I understand
it..he used it for gasoline for a community generator that took care of
the power needs of about 150 people for about a week.
I had more money in those days.
Gunner
>
>---
>"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
>Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
>talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
Ignoramus22882
>
> "Ignoramus29432" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote in message
> news:19WdnbqvLJXX-MPW...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
>>>>I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
>>>>If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
>>>>generosity.
>>>>
>>>>I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.
>>>
>>> I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
>>> even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
>>> that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
>>> of the year.
>>
>> I see.
>>
The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping by
Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting any
receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is outright
impossible, but it is not believable.
At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to be
true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.
i
Ed Huntress
"Ignoramus22882" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.22882.invalid> wrote in message
news:0rednXITT6YooMLW...@giganews.com...
Yeah, I gathered what you meant. "I see" said it very eloquently. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
What's a little amusing is that Gunner thinks he didn't need to file on
$18K.
He owes the SE tax, about $1,500.00, on every dollar and the filing
requirement kicks in at the same time - dollar one.
I think, THINK mind you, that income in excess of $600 requires a filing but
I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is that filing isn't conditioned on owing the IRS or the
FTB and anything over $1,200.00 requires a 1099 even if payment is made "in
kind". Otherwise, whoever paid him owes his tax.
Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a hospital or
anyone else.
He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to pursue
their claim outside of the court proceedings.
Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him his
house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have been
going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California will
forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I actually
collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d. So
was his mortgage lender.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:bLmdnURw3_gh0sLW...@giganews.com...
I saw that, but he may be right. Filing singly, the maximum is $9,350. If
he's filing jointly, it is $18,700; married filing separately, it's $3,650.
Less than that and you don't *have* to file. But I think he'd make out
better if he filed; I don't know the rules on EITC.
> I think, THINK mind you, that income in excess of $600 requires a filing
> but
> I'm not sure.
> What I am sure of is that filing isn't conditioned on owing the IRS or the
> FTB and anything over $1,200.00 requires a 1099 even if payment is made
> "in
> kind". Otherwise, whoever paid him owes his tax.
That is, if his clients file 1099s. <g>
>
> Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
> know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a hospital
> or
> anyone else.
> He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
> California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to pursue
> their claim outside of the court proceedings.
> Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him
> his
> house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have been
> going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California will
> forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I
> actually
> collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d.
> So
> was his mortgage lender.
More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:bLmdnURw3_gh0sLW...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "Ignoramus22882" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.22882.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:0rednXITT6YooMLW...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ignoramus29432" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> message news:19WdnbqvLJXX-MPW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>> Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
>>>>>>>>> Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
>> on $18K.
>> He owes the SE tax, about $1,500.00, on every dollar and the filing
>> requirement kicks in at the same time - dollar one.
>
> I saw that, but he may be right. Filing singly, the maximum is
> $9,350. If he's filing jointly, it is $18,700; married filing
> separately, it's $3,650. Less than that and you don't *have* to file.
> But I think he'd make out better if he filed; I don't know the rules
> on EITC.
Nor do I but I know what the State of California requires.
>
>> I think, THINK mind you, that income in excess of $600 requires a
>> filing but
>> I'm not sure.
>> What I am sure of is that filing isn't conditioned on owing the IRS
>> or the FTB and anything over $1,200.00 requires a 1099 even if
>> payment is made "in
>> kind". Otherwise, whoever paid him owes his tax.
>
> That is, if his clients file 1099s. <g>
California is a son of a bitch about this stuff Ed.
They do payroll audits on a regular basis and the auditors get a bonus for
what they collect.
They also do sales tax audits periodically.
At the end of the audit you just write a check if ther number is
reasonable - meaning affordable.
I've only heard about people that have put up a real battle. Every single
person I know, myself included, has just written that check and grumbled.
>
>>
>> Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had
>> he'd know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from
>> a hospital or
>> anyone else.
>> He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
>> California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to
>> pursue their claim outside of the court proceedings.
>> Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost
>> him his
>> house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have
>> been going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and
>> California will forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in
>> a heartbeat. I actually
>> collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever
>> P.O.'d. So
>> was his mortgage lender.
>
> More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.
The guy needs a clean break before it's to late. F'ing around isn't the way
to get that result.
He'll first have to admit his problem.
Then he can go through the system and come out cleaned up. At that point,
he'll be employable, at least in some meanial job.
There are a dozen decent paying jobs right in Taft that he can't even apply
for now. He'd have to pass a credit check for any of them and be elgible for
a low level security clearance for a couple. He can do neither of those
things today. He isn't even bondable.
--
John R. Carroll
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>news:bLmdnURw3_gh0sLW...@giganews.com...
>> Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
>> know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a hospital
>> or
>> anyone else.
>> He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
>> California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to pursue
>> their claim outside of the court proceedings.
>> Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him
>> his
>> house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have been
>> going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California will
>> forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I
>> actually
>> collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d.
>> So
>> was his mortgage lender.
>
>More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.
LOL Have you forgotten that he claims to have sold "all" his guns
and machinery to his father? Yet he's always talking about selling
stuff to cover this or that emergency. The only question is if he's
defrauding his father <snorf>, or his creditors. BTW, I'm with John, I
don't believe gummer has or will file for bankruptcy. That would
require that he intends to give his creditors *something*. No way he's
going to give them a nickel unless they somehow force the issue, which
is gonna' be tough with somebody who's been successfully dodging bills
for his entire adult life.
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>The guy needs a clean break before it's to late. F'ing around isn't the way
>to get that result.
>He'll first have to admit his problem.
>Then he can go through the system and come out cleaned up. At that point,
>he'll be employable, at least in some meanial job.
>There are a dozen decent paying jobs right in Taft that he can't even apply
>for now. He'd have to pass a credit check for any of them and be elgible for
>a low level security clearance for a couple. He can do neither of those
>things today. He isn't even bondable.
All good points. But I doubt that he wants to work at all, much less
full time. He's dedicated to subsistence living. If either he or his
wife can get on disability (assuming she isn't already) like his kid ,
he'll have more time for posting than he does now.
Anecdote: a guy I know needed a job desperately, but wasn't looking.
When I tried to help out with the search, his friend told me that the
guy felt deprived because everyone in his circle were getting checks
of one sort or another, and that was his goal as well. He refused to
accept that the others were qualified (on paper anyway) for their
checks, but he wasn't. The deadbeat world can be a strange place.
Wayne
Wes
>It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>generous).
Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd hate to create a
false impression.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
John R. Carroll
> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>> generous).
>
> Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.
Do they now.
Got a cite for that?
> hate to create a false impression.
What impression were you hoping to create Wes?
I'll tell you , and anyone viewing this,something that you can do to create
an impression.
Send these guys socks, talcum powder and beef jerkey.
4th LAR Bn, H&S Company
Unit 40650
fpo ap 96427-0650
Khan Neshin
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> > Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.
>
> Do they now.
> Got a cite for that?
>
> John R. Carroll
I know one family that tithes. Does that count as a cite?
Dan
John R. Carroll
I know one as well
My own.
We tithe on the basis of our biblical teaching, ie. first fruits.
The ten percent thing is a bunch of evangelical bullshit.
Jimmy Swaggert is a ten percenter.
So is Crouch.
What's ten percent of the cheap assed jets they fly?
I mean come on, real men fly Falcon's or Challengers, not Lear's.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:qi3vl59nnvcf1k73p...@4ax.com...
You have to be alert for an occasional glimmer of truth in much of what
Gunner writes. Sometimes he slips and tells it like it is.
Most of the handloading info probably is on the mark.
--
Ed Huntress
Steve B
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:8iM7n.143974$oC1.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
>>It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>>generous).
>
> Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd hate
> to create a
> false impression.
>
> Wes
What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says 10%.
Steve
Larry Jaques
<desert...@fishmail.net> scrawled the following:
My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?
rangerssuck
wrote:
>
> My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
> for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?
>
If that's true, then they're totally misusing the word. From
Dictionary.com:
Word History: A tithe is a tenth, etymologically speaking; in fact,
tithe is the old ordinal numeral in English. Sound changes in the
prehistory of English are responsible for its looking so different
from the word ten. Tithe goes back to a prehistoric West Germanic form
*tehuntha-, formed from the cardinal numeral *tehun, "ten," and the
same ordinal suffix that survives in Modern English as -th. The n
disappeared before the th in the West Germanic dialect area that gave
rise to English, and eventually yielded the Old English form tēothe,
"tenth," still not too different from the cardinal numeral tīen. But
over time, as the former became tithe and the latter ten, and as tithe
developed the specialized meaning "a tenth part paid as a tax," it
grew harder to perceive a relationship between the two. The result was
that speakers of English created a new word for the ordinal, tenth,
built with the cardinal numeral ten on the pattern of the other
regularly-formed ordinal numerals like sixth or seventh.
Eregon
news:YPudnY0zFrTp18PW...@giganews.com:
> On 2010-01-26, Eregon <Era...@Saphira.org> wrote:
>> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote in
>> news:5c6dnUXhm-7ab8DW...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
>>> earthquake.
>>
>> Yah - leftover DNC-supplied "Presidential Campaign Fund" donations
>> from US Taxpayers who checked the "Yes" boxes on their 1040s.
>>
>> Never forget that leftover campaign donations are considered as an
>> IRA by the Infernal Revenue scumsuckers.
>
> What do you mean, considered as an IRA? I do not understand.
>
> i
>
An Individual Retirement Account.
All funds remaining in a candidate's Campaign Fund - once the final bills
are paid - are considered to be just waiting for the next campaign.
The candidate - by declaring the amount as income on his/her/its tax
return - can withdraw and spend as much or as little as desired.
IOW, for all practical purposes, Campaign Fund = IRA for politicians.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
"Probably" isn't worth much to me when it comes to Usenet posters.
Once I know that someone is BSing on a subject I know something about,
how am I supposed to tell if they're doing the same on other subjects?
If I need a consensus on those, I can get it quicker without having a
question mark alongside the BSer's contribution. On the other hand it
doesn't matter if I disagree with posters on some things, so long as
they don't lose their credibility by BSing during the process.
Wayne
Steve B
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:4hkvl5he5hd9s8qci...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
> <desert...@fishmail.net> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>news:8iM7n.143974$oC1.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>>>>generous).
>>>
>>> Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd
>>> hate
>>> to create a
>>> false impression.
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says
>>10%.
>
> My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
> for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?
>
I can only answer as an EX Mormon. The Mormon church wants members to tithe
10%. Ones who cannot are asked to perform duties instead. At the end of
the year, you and your bishop have a tithing settlement where you are either
asked to come up with the shortage or given a hearty back pat for any given
in excess. None is ever refunded. Having a clean tithing history is a
REQUIREMENT for entering certain parts of a temple, temple ceremonies, and
positions of leadership in the church, even including janitor staff, which
is a well paid life time job with benefits.
There is an old boy system in the church similar to the Masons. Many of the
Mormon men ARE Masons. Lots of local business decisions are made by this
cadre. And afterward, church members are encouraged to patronize members
businesses, and severely chastised for patronizing non member businesses. A
member in need is often sent by the bishop to a local Mormon businessman for
a job, or a car, or whatever. A vig from the business is also expected for
the opportunity to get the seal of approval, and the ongoing business
support.
In some cases, it may go up to 40%, but when you basically have a monopoly
on a good or service in a community, guaranteed continued success, and
dependable profits, 60% can still leave you a good net, and the 40% is a
good write off.
So, having a cement rock hard status and position in the community financial
area, being a king of kings, and being a social pillar is worth giving away
some of the money channeled to you through religious means.
HTH
Steve
rangerssuck
> "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4hkvl5he5hd9s8qci...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
>
> >>"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8iM7n.143974$oC1.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Sounds like "Big Love" is a documentary. What a twisted world.
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:j0n0m55mq5ki8dabl...@4ax.com...
I'll agree on the latter part. As for the former part, you're right, which
is why I take everything that some posters say with a grain of salt. I know
just enough about handloading to know where Gunner is on that stuff. I
disagree with him about using Dacron fluff to fill cartridges for light
target loads, for example, because I've done it and I get a melted mess in
the throat. I use kapok. So do many other people. But many others agree with
Gunner on it. Its viability probably varies with the gun and the load.
In any case, he isn't b.s.'ing about that stuff. He has two modes of
discussion and you have to be alert to which one is in use. Anything
political, assume b.s. and you'll be right 80% of the time. The same goes
for Constitutional history, but that's just a result of a hop-scotch,
self-selected self-education -- like Retief and Strabo.
--
Ed Huntress
Mark Rand
wrote:
>Wes wrote:
>> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>>> generous).
>>
>> Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.
>
>Do they now.
>Got a cite for that?
>
It appears that the word is descended from old English and German words
meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.
Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now, since
originally, it would probably have represented the person's entire tax burden.
I'd like to be taxed at ten percent of my income :-)
Mark Rand
RTFM
Ed Huntress
"Mark Rand" <ra...@internettie.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ra51m5d8p3sh1sb0r...@4ax.com...
An essential point is being missed here, which is that contributing directly
to the welfare of people in need, as Iggy did, has little or no connection
to supporting ministries. In many, perhaps most, US churches the
contributions go first to supporting the church or the ministry. Some,
particularly conservative (mainline) Protestant churches and Catholic
churches, have established charities and they budget a percentage to them
regardless of actual contributions made to the church. Many others do not.
Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.
You can't enter someone else's head and determine their motivations for
contributing to one versus the other, but their functions clearly are
distinct. Whether one considers a contribution to a church to be equivalent
to charity for people who are suffering the effects of a natural disaster is
up to their own conscience; in some cases, it's a matter of declared church
policies.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Wes wrote:
>>> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>>>> generous).
>>>
>>> Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.
>>
>> Do they now.
>> Got a cite for that?
>>
>
> It appears that the word is descended from old English and German
> words meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.
>
> Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now,
> since originally, it would probably have represented the person's
> entire tax burden.
There is a big discussion of this in Larry Osbourn's last book.
>
> I'd like to be taxed at ten percent of my income :-)
I hear THAT!!!
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Wes wrote:
>>> Ignoramus29432 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
>>>> generous).
>>>
>>> Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.
>>
>> Do they now.
>> Got a cite for that?
>>
>
> It appears that the word is descended from old English and German
> words meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.
>
> Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now,
> since originally, it would probably have represented the person's
> entire tax burden.
Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe by Larry W. Osborne (Paperback -
April 14, 2009)
--
John R. Carroll
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Gummer refers to his 56X126' lot as "acreage", warns that it's mined
(against nosey bill collectors presumably), and claims to have a 1000'
range in his backyard. Obviously lying comes as easily to him as
breathing, and I don't expect the first to stop until the second does.
Maybe not even then, since he's exactly the kind of guy who might
leave instructions to inscribe a whopper on his tombstone. So I
wouldn't waste a second weighing the validity of his opinion on guns
or anything else for that matter. I remember him claiming to be an
active hunter, yet curiously unaware of the very common knowledge of
declining mule deer populations in the west. By then I'd figured out
that his tales of being a cowboy, cop, indian, and biker etc. (every
one of the village people <snorf>) were most likely all wild
exaggerations based on little more than a whiff of experience and lots
of ass time reading. Now he has to one-up himself with ever more
ridiculous stuff like the 2' centipede and the well-stocked
electronics shop. I've asked several times for readers to nominate a
bigger BS artist, with no takers so far. And little wonder. There
can't be many who've boasted of nearly unlimited skill, work ethic,
and brokitis, all in the same post!
Wayne
Mark Rand
wrote:
>Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
>or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
>contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
>standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
>part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
>running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.
>
Curiously, on this side of the pond, Tax exemption for charities works so that
the charity recovers the tax, not the donor. The donor normally has to tick a
box if using a form or website to state that they are a tax payer and want the
charity to be able to reclaim the tax.
Mark Rand
RTFM
Ed Huntress
Without getting into the details of our vastly different tax structures, all
I can offer about ours is that it doesn't tax church organizations --
although it does tax their paid employees -- and that it allows an income
tax deduction to individuals who make charitable contributions.
This wasn't intended to be an issue, only to point out that our tax system
handles church contributions and charity contributions in a similar way. The
point was intended to balance the point that there can be a big difference
in how the money is spent. To be a legit charity, some percentage (I forget
how much) actually has to go toward charitable causes, the definition of
which can be someone else's bone, if they want something to chew on.
--
Ed Huntress
Ignoramus27891
> An essential point is being missed here, which is that contributing directly
> to the welfare of people in need, as Iggy did, has little or no connection
> to supporting ministries. In many, perhaps most, US churches the
> contributions go first to supporting the church or the ministry. Some,
> particularly conservative (mainline) Protestant churches and Catholic
> churches, have established charities and they budget a percentage to them
> regardless of actual contributions made to the church. Many others do not.
>
> Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
> or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
> contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
> standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
> part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
> running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.
You practically stole a point that I was going to make, though I would
not have stated it as well.
A charitable society, like Red Cross, exists for the purposes of
providing material help to people in need.
A church exists as a mutual society of members of the church, and
contributions to churches go towards paying the pastors and
maintaining this social organization.
In other words, Red Cross passes the money through, and the church
consumes money.
While donations to both churches and charitable societies are tax
deductible, they do not perform the same social function.
So, saying that Mr. Conservative is better than Mr. Liberal, because
Mr. Conservative contributed $30 towards his church, and Mr. Liberal
contributed only $23 towards Red Cross, is disingenious. These
contributions are of different nature.
In this example, Mr Liberal does not enjoy the benefit of paying for a
building to enjoy meeting like minded people on Sundays.
The above is not really saying that contributing to Red Cross is "better"
than to a church, only that they serve the a different function.
Przemek Klosowski
> That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?
>
> Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
> not impressed.
I know for a fact that they gave a similar amount to another charity just
a short while earlier. Look, you may disagree with their politics, but
they are decent, upstanding people.
Larry Jaques
<desert...@fishmail.net> scrawled the following:
Thanks, Steve. It sounds just like politics, doesn't it?
<sigh>
--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
Larry Jaques
<ra...@internettie.co.uk> scrawled the following:
From your mouth to God's ear, Mark. The Brit PTBs will now add an
additional 10% tax to everything in your own personal life--with your
_blessing_.
(you forgot to say "only". ;)
--
It is in his pleasure that a man really lives; it is from
his leisure that he constructs the true fabric of self.
-- Agnes Repplier
Steve B
"Przemek Klosowski" <prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote in message
news:hjr1i6$mn0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I wouldn't say that lying people who hang out with terrorists are decent,
upstanding people.
Steve
Steve B
Slightly different tax structure, but yes, very similar.
Steve
Michael A. Terrell
Ignoramus27891 wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-27, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > An essential point is being missed here, which is that contributing directly
> > to the welfare of people in need, as Iggy did, has little or no connection
> > to supporting ministries. In many, perhaps most, US churches the
> > contributions go first to supporting the church or the ministry. Some,
> > particularly conservative (mainline) Protestant churches and Catholic
> > churches, have established charities and they budget a percentage to them
> > regardless of actual contributions made to the church. Many others do not.
> >
> > Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
> > or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
> > contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
> > standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
> > part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
> > running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.
>
> You practically stole a point that I was going to make, though I would
> not have stated it as well.
>
> A charitable society, like Red Cross, exists for the purposes of
> providing material help to people in need.
They exist to collect donations.
> A church exists as a mutual society of members of the church, and
> contributions to churches go towards paying the pastors and
> maintaining this social organization.
And no other group has to pay for their overhead? So much for your
math skills.
> In other words, Red Cross passes the money through, and the church
> consumes money.
So, the Red Cross doesn't pay utility bills, taxes, wages or anything
else? What a moron.
Also, the Red Cross is always begging for money. Does every church in
Chicago call you several times each year and pressure you for money?
Even if you tell them you can't pay your own bills? They had the nerve
to insist i could give them at least $25 a month when I had zero income.
Does the Red Cross have local offices all over town where they help
people pay their bills, run food banks, give away clothes or help
stranded motorists with gasoline and hotel scripts to get them back on
the road? Arrange medicine for those who can't afford it? The Red Cross
only shows up when the TV news cameras are rolling while local churches
help their neighbors every day, till their money runs out each month. I
know of some that almost lost their church buildings because they
extended too much help, after Katrina.
> While donations to both churches and charitable societies are tax
> deductible, they do not perform the same social function.
>
> So, saying that Mr. Conservative is better than Mr. Liberal, because
> Mr. Conservative contributed $30 towards his church, and Mr. Liberal
> contributed only $23 towards Red Cross, is disingenious. These
> contributions are of different nature.
You're right. Red Cross takes a bigger chunk of the money as
overhead. Just like Children's Fund and other so called Charities that
pay their director millions of dollars a year.
> In this example, Mr Liberal does not enjoy the benefit of paying for a
> building to enjoy meeting like minded people on Sundays.
yawn. Red Cross owns and leases buildings all over the world. How
many local Red Cross offices run soup kitchens, or training to help
people get a job?
> The above is not really saying that contributing to Red Cross is "better"
> than to a church, only that they serve the a different function.
Red Cross is a business. Nothing more.
> > You can't enter someone else's head and determine their motivations
> > for contributing to one versus the other, but their functions
> > clearly are distinct. Whether one considers a contribution to a
> > church to be equivalent to charity for people who are suffering the
> > effects of a natural disaster is up to their own conscience; in some
> > cases, it's a matter of declared church policies.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Larry Jaques
<desert...@fishmail.net> scrawled the following:
>
You forgot the bigotry angle, the raised by corrupt Chicago
gangsters/politicians angle, and a few more.
Steve B
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:14:06 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
> <desert...@fishmail.net> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Przemek Klosowski" <prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote in message
>>news:hjr1i6$mn0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:26:30 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>
>>>> That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?
>>>>
>>>> Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
>>>> not impressed.
>>>
>>> I know for a fact that they gave a similar amount to another charity
>>> just
>>> a short while earlier. Look, you may disagree with their politics, but
>>> they are decent, upstanding people.
>>
>>I wouldn't say that lying people who hang out with terrorists are decent,
>>upstanding people.
>
> You forgot the bigotry angle, the raised by corrupt Chicago
> gangsters/politicians angle, and a few more.
>
No, I haven't.
Steve
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.22882.invalid> wrote:
>On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Ignoramus29432" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:19WdnbqvLJXX-MPW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
>>>>>> Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
>>>>>I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
>>>>>If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
>>>>>generosity.
>>>>>
>>>>>I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.
>>>>
>>>> I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
>>>> even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
>>>> that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
>>>> of the year.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>>
>> Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)
>
>The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping by
>Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting any
>receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is outright
>impossible, but it is not believable.
>
>At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to be
>true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.
>
>i
Why should I have gotten a receipt? What good would it do me?
When I file my taxes on the $18k total I made last year...or the unknown
amount I make this year..probably close to the same...$100 wont do shit.
Im a bit disappointed in you however. Seems you kicked in what...$25
wasnt it? And I know you made a hell of a lot more than $18k last year.
You do realize dont you..that its the lower class and low middle class
that give the most in donations in total, dont you?
Why? Because we of all people know how far $100 can be stretched if one
is careful.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Ignoramus20464
It could prove that you made the donation.
> When I file my taxes on the $18k total I made last year...or the unknown
> amount I make this year..probably close to the same...$100 wont do shit.
I thought that you mentioned that you would not file
> Im a bit disappointed in you however. Seems you kicked in what...$25
> wasnt it? And I know you made a hell of a lot more than $18k last year.
The amount is $50. But I can prove that I donated $50.
Whereas, in your case, we have to believe, knowing that that you do
not have any money, that you stopped by some collection point and
contributed $100 and did not get any receipt. I am not saying that you
did not do it. I am saying that I cannot believe this, given all I know.
I tremendously respect your metalworking opinions, but I have a
bullshit alarm, and sometimes it flashes a signal that I should not
simply believe something just because someone says so.
i
Gunner Asch
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.20464.invalid> wrote:
Prove it to whom? Those that know me well know I dont lie. Those that
dont..shrug its not my problem.
>
>> When I file my taxes on the $18k total I made last year...or the unknown
>> amount I make this year..probably close to the same...$100 wont do shit.
>
>I thought that you mentioned that you would not file
Thats up in the air at the moment, though its not germane to the
subject.
>
>> Im a bit disappointed in you however. Seems you kicked in what...$25
>> wasnt it? And I know you made a hell of a lot more than $18k last year.
>
>The amount is $50. But I can prove that I donated $50.
Good lad. Couldnt do any better though eh? Having a rough year too?
>
>Whereas, in your case, we have to believe, knowing that that you do
>not have any money, that you stopped by some collection point and
>contributed $100 and did not get any receipt. I am not saying that you
>did not do it. I am saying that I cannot believe this, given all I know.
And I should care if you believe or not, why, exactly? I made the
donation to help those in great and immediate need, not to polish my
apple.
>
>I tremendously respect your metalworking opinions, but I have a
>bullshit alarm, and sometimes it flashes a signal that I should not
>simply believe something just because someone says so.
>
>i
Good for you. Keep it well honed and properly oiled and it will be of
great service in the years to come.
Ignoramus29432
> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>> On 2010-01-26, Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:37:40 -0600, Ignoramus29432
>>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:30:00 -0600, Ignoramus29432
>>>>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Steve B <desert...@fishmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Disgusting. Michelle Obama pimping the airwaves for donations
>>>>>>> to a foundation for Haiti. Why doesn't she take some of her own
>>>>>>> money and pass it along? Or not go on a trip with her 200
>>>>>>> person entourage?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wait, I know the answers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
>>>>>> earthquake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i
>>>>>
>>>>> That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very
>>>>> very not impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> annual income.
>>>>
>>>> For comparison purposes, for a guy with a modest $100,000 per year
>>>> income, 0.5% would be a $500 donation.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very generous donation by my standards.
>>>>
>>>> i
>>>
>>> Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
>>>
>>> Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
>>
>> I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS
>> standards.
>>
>> If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
>> generosity.
>
> I'll even throw in a bag of Darrell Lea Original.
>
>
> Btw, his "wife" or whatever it is, split a $25,000.00 dissability settlement
> with him, collects a dissability check every month and the both of them are
> recieving food stamps.
>
Government help comes in handy sometimes.
i
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,rec.crafts.metalworking,rec.puzzles
From: Ignoramus12951 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.12951.invalid>
Subject: Re: OT: Liberals, Conservatives, Guns
References: <644d07aa-5287-430b...@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <qMidnWwnCac4U-XW...@posted.toastnet> <T4qdnfGH_cTKTeXW...@giganews.com> <lMCdnaVIT5JVg-fW...@posted.toastnet>
Organization:
Followup-To:
On 2010-02-16, Beryl <fo...@road.net> wrote:
> Ignoramus16496 wrote:
>> Most people who "go postal" and murder their colleagues, are not
>> previously described as obviosly deranged. Psychological screening,
>> constrained by a multitude of complicated legal issues, would never be
>> able to identify such people. It is a legal and practical
>> impossibility promoted by gun haters.
>>
>> i
>
> Psychological screening has identified a class of people who shouldn't
> be trusted with guns. You won't like what was found.
Why easily startled people should not be trusted with guns?
You seem to be making giant leaps of logic, probably trying to pull my
leg.
i
> Easily Startled People May Be More Politically Conservative
><http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424864,00.html>
>
> Right-wingers more startled by sudden noises and spiders than liberals,
> study finds
><http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1057909/Right-wingers-startled-sudden-noises-spiders-liberals-study-finds.html>
>
> The physiology of personal politics
><http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/09/the_physiology_of_personal_pol.html>
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
From: Ignoramus31297 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.31297.invalid>
Subject: Re: Gage block set question...
References: <4ccc7133$0$4895$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com> <S71zo.303263$MG3.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com> <La6dnWMwMuoPIFHR...@giganews.com> <70gpc6lnsgh9qg123...@4ax.com> <_9udnb2JadTzfVHR...@giganews.com> <vnczo.328969$pX3.2...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com> <GYCdnVcKc74g6lDR...@giganews.com> <vv8rc6h10ro04bt13...@4ax.com> <v8Cdnb6HCqjgLVDR...@giganews.com> <tv9sc695bu6bebg7u...@4ax.com> <zeydnf3V7YgOpVPR...@earthlink.com> <A-WdnS-KUsDc3lPR...@giganews.com> <f8idnXFbIZDcyVPR...@earthlink.com> <17ydncKB79CVU1PR...@giganews.com> <mYidnY_7kuxNRVPR...@earthlink.com> <8ICdnS8uLfn4RFPR...@giganews.com> <8b-dnV1s-IpEQFPR...@earthlink.com> <d5a55163-a6e4-4759...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Organization:
Followup-To:
On 2010-11-01, rangerssuck <range...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 11:33?am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Ignoramus31297 wrote:
>>
>> > On 2010-11-01, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Ignoramus31297 wrote:
>>
>> > >> On 2010-11-01, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Ignoramus29388 wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> On 2010-11-01, Michael A. Terrell ?mike.terr...@earthlink.net? wrote:
>> > >> >> ?
>> > >> >> ? Gunner Asch wrote:
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:07:57 -0500, Ignoramus29388
>> > >> >> ?? ?ignoramus29...@NOSPAM.29388.invalid? wrote:
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? ?On 2010-10-31, Gunner Asch ?gunnera...@gmail.com? wrote:
>> > >> >> ?? ?? On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:05:49 -0500, Ignoramus29388
>> > >> >> ?? ???ignoramus29...@NOSPAM.29388.invalid? wrote:
>> > >> >> ?? ??
>> > >> >> ?? ???On 2010-10-31, Wes ?ClutchAtLycosDot...@Gmail.com? wrote:
>> > >> >> ?? ???? Ignoramus9310 ?ignoramus9...@NOSPAM.9310.invalid? wrote:
>> > >> >> ?? ????
>> > >> >> ?? ?????My son's 9 year old friend, schoolmate and neighbor was banned from
>> > >> >> ?? ?????Wikipedia for life today, also.
>> > >> >> ?? ????
>> > >> >> ?? ???? Why?
>> > >> >> ?? ???
>> > >> >> ?? ???For vandalism, he was modifying an article about Lego. He did it a few
>> > >> >> ?? ???times and was banned. I laughed so hard yesterday.
>> > >> >> ?? ???
>> > >> >> ?? ???i
>> > >> >> ?? ??
>> > >> >> ?? ?? Was he posting incorrect information? ?Is so..and he was committing
>> > >> >> ?? ?? actual vandalism..he should be banned.
>> > >> >> ?? ??
>> > >> >> ?? ?? If he was posting actual provable data...you should start a campaign.
>> > >> >> ?? ?
>> > >> >> ?? ?No, he really was vandalizing. I just find it funny that a 9 year old
>> > >> >> ?? ?was banned for life from Wikipedia. He can, of course, open another account.
>> > >> >> ?? ?
>> > >> >> ?? ?i
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? He should be beaten to within a fraction of an inch of death, and
>> > >> >> ?? allowed to heal slowly without medical attention.
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? Somethings are simply "wrong"...and he found one of those.
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? Id not be laughing at the little gutter slime..but pissing on him from a
>> > >> >> ?? great height for his actions.
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? He did a Very Bad Thing (cr) and should be taught that such behavior is
>> > >> >> ?? NOT permissible ever again.
>> > >> >> ??
>> > >> >> ?? If you laugh at/with him...before long he will be spray painting your
>> > >> >> ?? car/truck/house as "a joke".
>> > >> >> ?
>> > >> >> ?
>> > >> >> ? ? ?It's no surprise that Iggy thinks vandalism is funny. :(
>> > >> >> ?
>> > >> >> ?
>>
>> > >> >> Why is that of no surprise to you?
>>
>> > >> > ? ?From the things you've posted in the past.
>>
>> > >> Then you may be surprised to find out that I made many controbutions
>> > >> to Wikipedia, and started two successful articles (Enhanced Machine
>> > >> Controller and Rotary Phase Converter).
>>
>> > > That has nothing to do with laughing about a kid being a vandal, and
>> > > you know it.
>>
>> > I am laughing about a kid being banned for life.
>>
>> ? ?More proof. ?There is nothing funny about vandalism, at any age.
>> Maybe his next act will be to use a Molitov Cocktail on your home. ?Or
>> to beat your son with a baseball bat.
>>
>> --
>
> I think, and I could be wrong, but this is the way I read it, that
> Iggy was commenting on the *irony* of WP thinking that "banning" a kid
> is actually going to stop him from posting.
I think that a big irony is in "banning a 9 year old for life".
I totaly understand Wikipedia, by the way, but it is still funny.
Since the banning is not very effective (lasts until IP or email
change), it is mostly symbolic.
> I most certainly agree that this sort of behavior is to be STRONGLY
> discouraged. This can also be viewd as a cautionary tale to all those
> who misguidedly rely on Wikipedia for accuracy.
Actually, it is the opposite. I looked at his changes, and they were
reverted almost instantly. Wikipedia is self policing.
i
Gunner Asch
Im not sure who he is talking about. Hope its not me..because not only
did he lie...and lied big..but put himself in the crosshairs for a nice
juicey law suit.
I only perked up when I saw Carrols name.
Gunner
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,