Aid In The Desert

[S.A. Boggs]

it would be a federal tax, meaning it would need federal approval, unless enacted state wide in all the states,
granted a tax on one specific thing, but a tax it is,

One can call it a tax, another a user fee...depends on who is doing the reporting of the news. The President could proclaim a user fee on the transactions to aid the Treasury stating that to oppose is to oppose funding National Security. Oppose the "fee" oppose National Security and the safety of the American People.
Sam

[lyman]

the user fee would be what WU gets for processing the transaction, (a very small portion of which goes to the retailer)

but since the funds go to the government, (and we know how well they manage money!!!!) maybe call it whatever you want,
however you know a percentage is going to be wasted

[S.A. Boggs]

the user fee would be what WU gets for processing the transaction, (a very small portion of which goes to the retailer)

but since the funds go to the government, (and we know how well they manage money!!!!) maybe call it whatever you want,
however you know a percentage is going to be wasted

%$ always is unfortunately unless it is the Salvation Army.
Sam

[JohnPeeff]

Hey, "No taxation without representation!"

[S.A. Boggs]

Hey, "No taxation without representation!"

Illegals are already ?revolting".
Sam

[bruce]

The point being made by the OP (me) isn't that the people are there in the desert. The point is that a US citizen is being prosecuted for performing what is obviously an act of Christian mercy. Now we can say the law is the law, but let us keep saying that when for example someone running a public business asks for a religious exemption to discriminate, OK?

Put more bluntly, let's see if any of the Good Christians here at the forum has this Christian's back.

Not sure that I qualify as a "Good Christian." If I were anywhere near someone in such a need, regardless of who they might be, regardless of how they got there, I'd do everything I could to help them. I've done it in the past. No one was so foolish as to try to use some jumped up interpretation of the law as a means to try to restrict such actions. Now ... guess some folks are simply blind. Last night I had a pile of really nice sub sandwiches given to me following a church function. They said it would give me nice suppers for the rest of the week. True. Boars head is good stuff. Went to Wal-Mart to pick up some watermelon, etc. Saw a man w/ a sign saying "Homeless. Need Help." Didn't have a dime of cash on me. A minute later, was buying the necessaries for the rest of the week. Can't see any difference between the two instances. They are people in need. I don't have the right to look the other way and pretend that I saw nothing. None of us do. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[S.A. Boggs]

Bruce is right in helping those in "need" regardless of morality. Our Church helps those in need constantly up to a point. Our Deacon's Fund will pay for automobile repair to help one go back and forth to work, not pay for telephone cards or TV service. One can get a good cussing when their "need" is declined as "I need my cell phone to talk to my friends or keep in touch on the net!" As to the illegals and funding them in their travels the answer is no. This is not a charitable act but an act of enabling to commit a crime against the Republic. People refuse to do the right thing in their country of origin, what makes one think they will do the right thing here?
Illegals have lived here and not learned our language to be able to communicate. Break our laws by taking false identification, creating fictions I.D. and many more to avoid detection.
Sam