I should add that I am VERY supportive of our troops but a lot of their sacrifice is to sustain the freedoms we enjoy so much here in the US. If this law comprimises one of those VERY important freedoms then even with it being for our troops I would not be able to support it. I'm sick of politicians slipping earmarks and unrelated legislation into bills.
It is my understanding that we already have laws, so to speak in place to protect veterans. As for Westboro, they will get their judgement and it does not need to come at the hand of the government.
It is quite possible I might slide to the nuetral side after getting the chance to look into this law a little more. This is honestly the first thing I've heard of this and going based on Dolly Fans information there is no amount of positive in a law that outweighs the negative of attacking Freedom of Speech. If true, this is a blatant attack on Freedom of Speech and support for this legislation should be evaluated carefully. So this was already signed into law? Unbelievable.
I had to go neutral on this one. On one hand, I like that the law will help the service members and their families affected by contaminated well water at Camp Lejeune in NC from '57 to '87, helps with fees and access for rural veterans, helps with streamlining the disabilities claim process for veterans and other benefits. On the other hand, I disagree that it is now illegal to hold protests at military funerals unless the protest is 300 feet away and is only held 2 hours before or 2 hours after the funeral. I know this is geared toward stopping the Westboro Baptist Church from their disgraceful protests. I totally disagree with the shows that that church creates at the funerals of our military funerals or the reasons they perform such protests but feel they are Americans using their right to free speech. I feel that this law had this part added just to get this part of the law passed, which sullied the benefits our military members will benefit from, as most would not vote down those benefits and the politicians knew that the protest part of the law would not pass on it's own. I will state one more time that I wish the horrible West Baptist Church would cease to exist and that I believe that they will end up in hel but feel they do have the right, as do each of us, to free speech.
I agree that they should get a tax break. That tax break should only be on their Olympic winnings and medals, though. They have spent a LOT of time and money to prove our country has the best athletes and they deserve a break for that. As for them receiving sponsorships and advertising deals, those EARNINGS are just like my earnings, so should be taxed just like mine are. I respect their commitment to being the best and joining the US Olympics.
I agree with Ryan in that our service men and women should get a limited time tax break when they return from a tour. It's the least we could do for those who fight to protect us and others on our behalf around the world. I know they signed up for the job but do think such a decision would be wise. I respect their commitment to fight for our freedom and protection.
Now let me say one thing first. Athletes that receive HUGE (and I do mean HUGE) sponsor/advertising (Phelps for example) deals should be excluded from this tax break but there are plenty of Olympic athletes that could certainly use a break and are probably deserving of one. There are plenty of athletes who invest a tremendous amount of money into their training and devote a lot of their life to becoming the best at what they do.
However, while I would support this to a limited degree I also think soldiers who serve in war zones should receive massive tax breaks at least in the short term after coming back home; that's the least we could do.
I love watching the Olympics. I watch the swimming but love the gymnastics more. Yes, it's amazing that someone can swim as fast as they do but it is more amazing that these athletes can jump, bend, flip, jump, etc. like they do in gymnastics! And gymnastics gives more of a variety to watch. But great job, Michael Phelps, best Olympian of all time!
I did read it but waited a while before commenting and it wasn't fresh in my mind.
In regards to the tax issue, I would support a tax system with the only deductions being for donations to non-profits and I would strongly tighten the qualifications for non-profits as it's about as loose as the qualifications for disability. Of course a flat tax rate across the board because a progressive tax rate is not fair and neither is tax loopholes that benefit the rich. That's not to say those on the bottom shouldn't pay their 15% as well.
Also, I would ban tax surpluses which in itself would cut down on the birth rate in the low income bracket. How we as a nation are paying people to be carry out a life of bad choices and continued lack of effort is beyond me. Sorry, a wee bit off topic.
I do like both, but I just think it takes a lot more physically and mentally to perform the gymnastics than the swimming. I'm not saying that it doesn't take a lot to perform in the sport of swimming, just that there's a lot more to gymnastics.
I agree with everything you said. As far as Harry Reid is concerned did you read my previous statement? I already took issue with Sen. Reid's comments and allegations. I think he's being a real a$$ about it. What he has said is completely unprofessional and in my opinion really disrespectful. As Romney's camp put it "put up or shut up". If he actually had any evidence then show it, if not he just needs to keep his unfounded opinions to himself.
I've never had an issue with Mitt's wealth, but I do find it a little contradictory that people like him go to such extraordinary lengths to take advantage of loopholes that deliberately benefit the wealthy, and then turn around and create additional loopholes for tax laws that only help the top earners. What about the rest of us who don't make over $250,000 a year?Despite whatever party you belong to, I just don't find it fair.
I agree with Ryan in that our service men and women should get a limited time tax break when they return from a tour. It's the least we could do for those who fight to protect us and others on our behalf around the world. I know they signed up for the job but do think such a decision would be wise. I respect their commitment to fight for our freedom and protection.
However, while I would support this to a limited degree I also think soldiers who serve in war zones should receive massive tax breaks at least in the short term after coming back home; that's the least we could do.
In regards to the tax issue, I would support a tax system with the only deductions being for donations to non-profits and I would strongly tighten the qualifications for non-profits as it's about as loose as the qualifications for disability. Of course a flat tax rate across the board because a progressive tax rate is not fair and neither is tax loopholes that benefit the rich. That's not to say those on the bottom shouldn't pay their 15% as well.
Also, I would ban tax surpluses which in itself would cut down on the birth rate in the low income bracket. How we as a nation are paying people to be carry out a life of bad choices and continued lack of effort is beyond me. Sorry, a wee bit off topic.
I've never had an issue with Mitt's wealth, but I do find it a little contradictory that people like him go to such extraordinary lengths to take advantage of loopholes that deliberately benefit the wealthy, and then turn around and create additional loopholes for tax laws that only help the top earners. What about the rest of us who don't make over $250,000 a year?Despite whatever party you belong to, I just don't find it fair.