Carter Downplays Castro Succession Rumors

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, but I would be interested in reading it. BTW, my childhood best friend was a Conservative Baptist and I'm Catholic. He and his family used to affectionately call me a heathen catholic. Anyhow, we use to always clash over politics but never did it get in the way of our friendship. He left for college years later and when I met up with him he had gone through some Christian Ministry that helped the homeless. He told me he was no longer a Conservative. He ended up with a PhD. in Education and last time I heard he was principal in a poor school district.

That's cool. Well I'm a conservative non-denominational Christian, have had catholic friends (but we never discussed politics as kids). I do hope to open/or work at an orphanage in India one day in the future though (Sujeet's wish as well, since he is from there).

That would be awesome. Mother Theresa was a great example of living the Gospel.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also, please give an example of a government program that doles out money to business (tax breaks don't count...they are not subsidies).

I am totally for tax breaks for businesses, big and small.

That said, how is a tax break not like a subsidy? A tax break is just a variable subsidy, where the amount subsidized depends on the economic producitivity of the business (and to a smaller extend on the ingenuity of the accountants).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think she stole some of Steven's pot.

I don't smoke pot. But I know plenty of 'conservative' Republicans who do!

[incanada1234 0]

I'm feeling the love in this thread and quite frankly, it's making me SICK.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think she stole some of Steven's pot.

I don't smoke pot.

good man

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Also, please give an example of a government program that doles out money to business (tax breaks don't count...they are not subsidies).

I am totally for tax breaks for businesses, big and small.

That said, how is a tax break not like a subsidy? A tax break is just a variable subsidy, where the amount subsidized depends on the economic producitivity of the business (and to a smaller extend on the ingenuity of the accountants).

Gupt, you'll have to take over this argument. I'm about to go to the beach for my company's summer party. Just pretend you're a liberal Christian and you'll do fine!

Edited August 4, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Just pretend you're a liberal Christian...

Ummm ... I have some spare food, where all the po' people at?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm feeling the love in this thread and quite frankly, it's making me SICK.

Can I hug you? It worked on Lisa.

Just pretend you're a liberal Christian...

Ummm ... I have some spare food, where all the po' people at?

...at McDonald's waiting to mug you!!! hehehe...sorry...I couldn't help tie that in from the other thread.

[VivaMexico 0]

Also, please give an example of a government program that doles out money to business (tax breaks don't count...they are not subsidies).

I am totally for tax breaks for businesses, big and small.

That said, how is a tax break not like a subsidy? A tax break is just a variable subsidy, where the amount subsidized depends on the economic producitivity of the business (and to a smaller extend on the ingenuity of the accountants).

Subsidy - (n). a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.

Tax money is collected from private individuals, corporations, and other entities by the government. If the money that is collected by the government is then given to an individual or enterprise for something, that is a subsidy (technically they have to be an enterprise advantageous to the public, but you get the point). The act of not collecting taxes on the part of the government is not a subsidy.

Say I earn $50,000 a year and the government collects 10%. All of the sudden the government decides to abolish taxes on my income bracket, and I no longer have to pay. That does not mean that the government gave me a $5,000 subsidy...it simply means they let me keep MY money. After all, I EARNED IT, just like corporations (who are not evil by the way...they provide the jobs so we can sit here and chat on VJ)

[chri'stina 190]

I think she stole some of Steven's pot.

I don't smoke pot. But I know plenty of 'conservative' Republicans who do!

me too unfortunately.... and not just pot. But it goes both way.

I'm feeling the love in this thread and quite frankly, it's making me SICK.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Subsidy - (n). a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.

Tax money is collected from private individuals, corporations, and other entities by the government. If the money that is collected by the government is then given to an individual or enterprise for something, that is a subsidy (technically they have to be an enterprise advantageous to the public, but you get the point). The act of not collecting taxes on the part of the government is not a subsidy.

Say I earn $50,000 a year and the government collects 10%. All of the sudden the government decides to abolish taxes on my income bracket, and I no longer have to pay. That does not mean that the government gave me a $5,000 subsidy...it simply means they let me keep MY money. After all, I EARNED IT, just like corporations (who are not evil by the way...they provide the jobs so we can sit here and chat on VJ)

Ok, the distinction you make is fair. I won't argue it. However, from a budgeting standpoint no business considers money it expects to pay out as part of its assets. When that money suddenly comes back (or doesn't go out to begin with), that's a net increase in assets. Same effect as if the business had rec'd a subsidy.

[incanada1234 0]

Can I hug you? It worked on Lisa.

I'll tell you what would work on me - making your signature about 80% smaller.

[VivaMexico 0]

Subsidy - (n). a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.

Tax money is collected from private individuals, corporations, and other entities by the government. If the money that is collected by the government is then given to an individual or enterprise for something, that is a subsidy (technically they have to be an enterprise advantageous to the public, but you get the point). The act of not collecting taxes on the part of the government is not a subsidy.

Say I earn $50,000 a year and the government collects 10%. All of the sudden the government decides to abolish taxes on my income bracket, and I no longer have to pay. That does not mean that the government gave me a $5,000 subsidy...it simply means they let me keep MY money. After all, I EARNED IT, just like corporations (who are not evil by the way...they provide the jobs so we can sit here and chat on VJ)

Ok, the distinction you make is fair. I won't argue it. However, from a budgeting standpoint no business considers money it expects to pay out as part of its assets. When that money suddenly comes back (or doesn't go out to begin with), that's a net increase in assets. Same effect as if the business had rec'd a subsidy.

I see your point. I guess I see a big difference between 1) granting tax breaks to a company that earned that money and 2) giving money to an individual who never earned it and gets it because they are poor. Harking back to my earlier point, that does not mean I want the poor person to die in the street. I simply think there are organizations better-equipped to help the downtrodden than the government is. THat is why Bush created the faith-based initiative, so that the government can help those groups do their job. It doesn't work as well as cutting out the government entirely, but it's certainly better than the government alone.

Edited August 4, 2006 by VivaMexico

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ok, the distinction you make is fair. I won't argue it. However, from a budgeting standpoint no business considers money it expects to pay out as part of its assets. When that money suddenly comes back (or doesn't go out to begin with), that's a net increase in assets. Same effect as if the business had rec'd a subsidy.

I see your point. I guess I see a big difference between 1) granting tax breaks to a company that earned that money and 2) giving money to an individual who never earned it and gets it because they are poor.

There is a big difference. I alluded to that in an earlier post on this thread. A tax break rewards productivity because the more you make, the larger your break is. A subsidy does not reward productivity.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Can I hug you? It worked on Lisa.

I'll tell you what would work on me - making your signature about 80% smaller.