pan6467

True, public universities are not taxed that is because they are paid by tax monies..... Private universities, however, do pay taxes (property and sales) to some degree.

To compare tax benefitted places higher learning and tax exempt churches as being one and the same is ridiculous.

Public AND private (in the form of student loans and grants) universities recieve taxpayer money and thus are subject to government regulations and requests. Plus, students are taxed when they attend, they are taxed on books and anything bought on campus.

Churches are private and should not recieve and until now I don't believe ever have recieved public funding from the government in any way (they already get funding by not being taxed in any way shape or form). When was the last time a parrishioner was taxed to attend the church of his choice? Was there a tax on that fundraising Bible he/she bought..... NOPE, were they taxed buying the shirt or bumper stickers???? NOPE.

Military barracks whether for the guard or federal troops are still government owned buildings and are there for emergencies for the citizens..... again you are comparing PUBLIC GOVERNMENT FUNDED INSTITUTIONS to PRIVATE FUNDED AND RUN INSTITUTIONS....... that is impossible as 1 is paid for by government tax revenue and the other by virtue of the 1st amendment and by virtue of thier own existence, should recieve no taxpayer funding whatsoever.

This is a stretch of a comparison.

Churches may also be (not saying they were) prejudicial in whom they serve.

If you read the article there are questions that a place like the Salvation army who is asking only for reimbursement of the nights they had evacuees there, may not be eligible...... this shows that what FEMA and this proposal is all about.... it's a prejudicial, self serving feel good way to spend tax dollars and it sucks sewer water.

You either reimburse EVERYONE including the private citizens that took people in or you reimbeurse NOONE..... not just whom the government deems, which in this case would be churches only..... extremely prejudicial and wrong.

We have entities (United Way, the Red Cross, the Church congresses, private donations, fundraisers etc.) in the private sector that should, could and would be handling this. Giving away tax money is showing that the GOP's argument that the programs they have cut are needed.

You cannot have it one way and not acknowledge the other as being fact.

And again, what is wrong with no interest loans and amnesty on utilities. Far less expensive, and far more fair. Plus, the food and clothing and outside "expenses" these churches had probably came from food banks and private and public companies and individuals. So utilities and maybe some wear are all the true expenses there were.

But let's be the Religious Right GOP and throw money at these churches to maintain their support, while we keep maintaining that we need to cut domestic programs because churches and non profit entities can pick up the slack..... yet the second they are asked to pick it up, they get tax monies. While other programs such as the Salvation Army and Red Cross will doubtfully recieve a red cent. How can anyone support this, it's obvious in the prejudice and the bias and the political power plays?

And noone is denying that with these churches taking this money, you are begging for government red tape, bureaucracies and setting very dangerous precedents.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"