Religious tax exemption Supreme Court case

[Calm]

Quote

And finally, in a case involving Catholic Charities, the court ruled that the state of Wisconsin violated the Constitution by refusing to give a Catholic social ministry group the same exemption as it gives to churches, so that they don't have to pay the state's unemployment tax. The state had maintained that the social ministry group didn't qualify for the exemption because it is not a proselytizing entity.

Writing for the court today, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: "It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion."

"There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule," she acknowledged, "but this is not one of them."

Reacting to the decision, Eric Rassbach, who represented the Catholic Charities Bureau, said, "Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place. It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion."….

At the same time, however, Thursday's decision could open the door to large numbers of religious groups, some of them employing tens of thousands of people, fleeing and weakening the unemployment compensation system, which at one time was mandatory in Wisconsin and other states.

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5424445/supreme-court-catholic-charities-wisconsin-unemployment-compensation

Anyone with info on the case?

It seems odd that religious groups don’t have to pay unemployment tax to me.  Is the rationale no taxes at all can be required?  Seems like religious groups could opt out of paying SS in general as well and not just as individual or organization conscientious objectors*** since the unemployment tax is for covering unemployment government benefits and I don’t see much difference with retirement benefits.

Are there any safeguards included to ensure the employee gets enough income to pay for insurance for unemployment or retirement themselves if they want to?

***this info is from a quick search as I had no relevant knowledge on the subject.

What, if anything, is absolutely required from religious organizations to the government money wise?

Edited June 6, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5424445/supreme-court-catholic-charities-wisconsin-unemployment-compensation

Anyone with info on the case?

It seems odd that religious groups don’t have to pay unemployment tax to me.  Is the rationale no taxes at all can be required?  Seems like religious groups could opt out of paying SS in general as well and not just as individual or organization conscientious objectors*** since the unemployment tax is for covering unemployment government benefits and I don’t see much difference with retirement benefits.

Are there any safeguards included to ensure the employee gets enough income to pay for insurance for unemployment or retirement themselves if they want to?

***this info is from a quick search as I had no relevant knowledge on the subject.

What, if anything, is absolutely required from religious organizations to the government money wise?

Wisconsin has a law that exempts religious organizations from paying unemployment tax.  See section 108.02(15)(h).  Why Wisconsin exempts those?  I don't know.  But there is several other organizations that are also exempt.  This case was whether or not a religiously affiliated group falls in that definition or not.  So it isn't saying that religious groups are exempted from unemployment tax nationwide.  Just that the Wisconsin law includes religiously affiliated groups.

[Amulek]

From Justice Sotomayor's unanimous (and, I think, correct) opinion in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Rev. Comm'n

Quote

 

    Wisconsin, like many other States, exempts certain religious organizations from paying taxes into the State's unemployment compensation system. One such exemption covers nonprofits "operated primarily for religious purposes" and controlled, supervised, or principally supported by a church. Wis. Stat. §108.02(15)(h)(2) (2023–2024). Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and four of the entities that it operates, claimed that they qualify for the exemption as religious organizations controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, holding that petitioners are not "operated primarily for religious purposes" because they neither engage in proselytization nor serve only Catholics in their charitable work….

    The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of §108.02(15)(h)(2) imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines….

    "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause" is that the government may not "officially prefe[r]" one religious denomination over another. This principle of denominational neutrality bars States from passing laws that "'aid or oppose'" particular religions, or interfere in the "competition between sects." The Establishment Clause's "prohibition of denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause," too.

    A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination. Take, for instance, a law that treats "a religious service of Jehovah's Witnesses … differently than a religious service of other sects" because the former is "less ritualistic, more unorthodox, [and] less formal." Or consider an exemption that applies only to religious organizations that perform baptisms, engage in monotheistic worship, or hold services on Sunday. Such laws establish a preference for certain religions based on the content of their religious doctrine, namely, how they worship, hold services, or initiate members and whether they engage in those practices at all. Such official differentiation on theological lines is fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order, for "[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma."

    This case involves that paradigmatic form of denominational discrimination. In determining whether petitioners qualified for the tax exemption under §108.02(15)(h)(2), the Wisconsin Supreme Court acknowledged that petitioners are controlled by a church, … thereby satisfying one of the exemption's two criteria. The court's inquiry instead turned on whether petitioners are "operated primarily for religious purposes." On that criterion, the court recognized that petitioners' charitable works are religiously motivated. The court nevertheless deemed petitioners ineligible for the exemption under §108.02(15)(h)(2) because they do not "attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith," "supply any religious materials to program participants or employees," or limit their charitable services to members of the Catholic Church. Put simply, petitioners could qualify for the exemption while providing their current charitable services if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.

    Petitioners' Catholic faith, however, bars them from satisfying those criteria. Catholic teaching, petitioners say, forbids "'misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.'" It also requires provision of charitable services "without making distinctions 'by race, sex, or religion.'" Many religions apparently impose similar rules prohibiting proselytization or religious differentiation in the provision of charitable services. Others seemingly have adopted a contrary approach.

    Wisconsin's exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices. Indeed, petitioners' eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists), not "'secular criteria'" that "happen to have a 'disparate impact' upon different religious organizations." Much like a law exempting only those religious organizations that perform baptisms or worship on Sundays, an exemption that requires proselytization or exclusive service of co-religionists establishes a preference for certain religions based on the commands of their religious doctrine. {Decisions about whether to "express and inculcate religious doctrine" through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines. A statute that excludes religious organizations from an accommodation on such grounds facially favors some denominations over others.}

    The Court thus held the law was unconstitutional unless it passed "strict scrutiny," which is to say was "closely fitted to further" "a compelling governmental interest." And the law failed that test:

    Wisconsin … argues that the law serves a compelling state interest in "ensuring unemployment coverage for its citizens." Yet the State fails to explain how the theological lines drawn by §108.02(15)(h)(2) are narrowly tailored to advance that asserted interest, particularly as applied to petitioners. Indeed, petitioners operate their own unemployment compensation system for employees, which provides benefits largely "'equivalent'" to the state system. Furthermore, Wisconsin does not suggest that organizations like Catholic Charities, which decline to proselytize and choose to serve all-comers, are more likely to leave their employees without unemployment benefits. Nor could it: The record is devoid of such evidence.

    The distinctions drawn by Wisconsin's regime, moreover, are vastly underinclusive when it comes to ensuring unemployment coverage for its citizens. Wisconsin exempts over 40 forms of "employment" from its unemployment compensation program. Notably, those exemptions cover religious entities that provide charitable services in a similar manner to petitioners (that is, without proselytizing or denominational differentiation), but are exempt because the work is done directly by the church itself or its ministers, rather than by a separate nonprofit organization controlled by the church. That underinclusiveness leaves "'appreciable damage to [the State's] supposedly vital interest unprohibited'" and therefore belies the State's claim of narrow tailoring.

    Second, the State argues that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of §108.02(15)(h)(2) is "narrowly tailored to avoid entangling the state with employment decisions touching on religious faith and doctrine." When an organization's employees "express an[d] inculcate religious doctrine through worship, proselytization, and religious education," the State explains, "misconduct disputes could often force the state to decide whether employees complied with religious doctrine."

    Yet the State again fails to demonstrate that §108.02(15)(h)(2) is "closely fitted to further" that anti-entanglement interest. To the extent the State seeks to avoid opining on employee compliance with religious teachings, it does not explain why it declined to craft an exemption limited to employees who are in fact tasked with inculcating religious doctrine. Instead, the exemption here functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.

    That overinclusiveness pervades Wisconsin's exemption regime more broadly, too. Recall that Wisconsin exempts from its unemployment compensation system all "church[es] or convention[s] or association[s] of churches" without differentiating between employees actually involved in religious works, for whom the anti-entanglement concern is relevant, and other staff. The State itself concedes, as it must, that this regime contains "an element of over-inclusivity." At bottom, then, the poor fit between the State's asserted anti-entanglement concern and the line it has drawn among religious organizations cannot be described as narrow tailoring….

 

 

If that's too much legaleze, here's ChatGPT's summary that some may find easier to follow:

This case is about how the government draws lines between what counts as "religious" activity for purposes of a tax exemption, and whether those lines unfairly favor some religious groups over others.

Background:
Wisconsin, like many states, has a law that exempts certain religious organizations from paying into the state’s unemployment insurance system. To qualify, a nonprofit must be:

1. Controlled or supported by a church, and

2. Operated primarily for religious purposes.

Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) and several of its affiliates, which provide social services like food, housing, and job support, are controlled by the Catholic Diocese of Superior. CCB argued they should qualify for the exemption.

What the Wisconsin Supreme Court said:
The court acknowledged that CCB is church-controlled, satisfying the first requirement. But it denied the exemption on the second point, reasoning that CCB's activities—while inspired by Catholic values—were not “primarily religious” because:

• They don’t evangelize or try to convert people.

• They serve people of all faiths, not just Catholics.

• They don’t distribute religious materials or explicitly promote Catholic doctrine.

What the U.S. Supreme Court said:
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. It ruled that this way of deciding what counts as “religious” improperly favors certain kinds of religious expression over others, violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which requires government neutrality among religions.

The Court emphasized that:

• Some religions express their faith through proselytizing; others, like the Catholic groups here, do so through charitable works without pushing doctrine.

• The state can't say one type of religious expression is more “authentically religious” than another.

• Basing tax exemptions on whether a group proselytizes or serves only co-religionists privileges religions that do those things and disadvantages those that don’t.

Key Legal Idea: Denominational Neutrality
This means the government can’t favor one religious tradition or theological approach over another. For example, a law can’t give tax breaks only to groups that hold services on Sundays or perform baptisms — those are theological choices, and the government must stay neutral on such matters.

Why the Court found the law unconstitutional:
The Court applied a legal test called strict scrutiny, which is used when the government may be violating fundamental rights. Under that test, the state must:

1. Have a compelling interest, and

2. Use narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest.

Wisconsin claimed it was trying to ensure workers get unemployment benefits. But:

• Catholic Charities runs its own benefit system, comparable to the state's.

• The state offered no evidence that groups like CCB put workers at greater risk of being left out.

• The law’s criteria excluded groups like CCB while allowing exemptions for others doing nearly identical work—just because they’re structured differently (e.g., part of a church vs. a separate nonprofit). That inconsistency undermined the idea that the law was carefully targeted.

Big Picture:
This ruling is not just about tax law—it’s about how the government recognizes religious expression. It says the state can’t force religious organizations to conform to one model (like evangelism or exclusivity) to be considered religious. Doing so imposes a theological judgment, which the Constitution forbids.

[The Nehor]

Read up on this. The ruling doesn’t have any far-reaching implications. Wisconsin can legislatively repeal their religious exemption to employment taxes. What they can’t do is have a religious exemption and then decide which religious organizational goals do and do not fall under this role.

You couldn’t use this ruling to opt out of paying taxes in general as a general right. It is about not discriminating based on which of a religious organization’s goals are ‘worthy’ of being exempt under existing legislation.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

The Court emphasized that:

• Some religions express their faith through proselytizing; others, like the Catholic groups here, do so through charitable works without pushing doctrine.

• The state can't say one type of religious expression is more “authentically religious” than another.

Very much agree with this.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Catholic Charities runs its own benefit system, comparable to the state's.

Good news.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

From Justice Sotomayor's unanimous (and, I think, correct) opinion in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Rev. Comm'n

 

If that's too much legaleze, here's ChatGPT's summary that some may find easier to follow:

This case is about how the government draws lines between what counts as "religious" activity for purposes of a tax exemption, and whether those lines unfairly favor some religious groups over others.

Background:
Wisconsin, like many states, has a law that exempts certain religious organizations from paying into the state’s unemployment insurance system. To qualify, a nonprofit must be:

1. Controlled or supported by a church, and

2. Operated primarily for religious purposes.

Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) and several of its affiliates, which provide social services like food, housing, and job support, are controlled by the Catholic Diocese of Superior. CCB argued they should qualify for the exemption.

What the Wisconsin Supreme Court said:
The court acknowledged that CCB is church-controlled, satisfying the first requirement. But it denied the exemption on the second point, reasoning that CCB's activities—while inspired by Catholic values—were not “primarily religious” because:

• They don’t evangelize or try to convert people.

• They serve people of all faiths, not just Catholics.

• They don’t distribute religious materials or explicitly promote Catholic doctrine.

What the U.S. Supreme Court said:
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. It ruled that this way of deciding what counts as “religious” improperly favors certain kinds of religious expression over others, violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which requires government neutrality among religions.

The Court emphasized that:

• Some religions express their faith through proselytizing; others, like the Catholic groups here, do so through charitable works without pushing doctrine.

• The state can't say one type of religious expression is more “authentically religious” than another.

• Basing tax exemptions on whether a group proselytizes or serves only co-religionists privileges religions that do those things and disadvantages those that don’t.

Key Legal Idea: Denominational Neutrality
This means the government can’t favor one religious tradition or theological approach over another. For example, a law can’t give tax breaks only to groups that hold services on Sundays or perform baptisms — those are theological choices, and the government must stay neutral on such matters.

Why the Court found the law unconstitutional:
The Court applied a legal test called strict scrutiny, which is used when the government may be violating fundamental rights. Under that test, the state must:

1. Have a compelling interest, and

2. Use narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest.

Wisconsin claimed it was trying to ensure workers get unemployment benefits. But:

• Catholic Charities runs its own benefit system, comparable to the state's.

• The state offered no evidence that groups like CCB put workers at greater risk of being left out.

• The law’s criteria excluded groups like CCB while allowing exemptions for others doing nearly identical work—just because they’re structured differently (e.g., part of a church vs. a separate nonprofit). That inconsistency undermined the idea that the law was carefully targeted.

Big Picture:
This ruling is not just about tax law—it’s about how the government recognizes religious expression. It says the state can’t force religious organizations to conform to one model (like evangelism or exclusivity) to be considered religious. Doing so imposes a theological judgment, which the Constitution forbids.

Concerning "Basing tax exemptions on whether a group proselytizes or serves only co-religionists privileges religions that do those things and disadvantages those that don’t" brings to mind the Druze religion. Not only do they not proselytize, you can't even join them if you want to. They don't let anyone in, whatsoever. You have to be born into it.

[JustAnAustralian]

For those that want to read the court's long-form opinion you can see it at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf

The PDF is 44 pages, but given the standard SCOTUS ginormous page margins, it's actually closer to 20 of actual text.

[Rain]

Since Catholic Charities is a 501c3 charity I'm confused why this is a thing. Why are they even worried about it for tax purposes since, as far as I can tell, they are already exempt from paying taxes as a chatity?

[Benjamin McGuire]

59 minutes ago, Rain said:

Since Catholic Charities is a 501c3 charity I'm confused why this is a thing. Why are they even worried about it for tax purposes since, as far as I can tell, they are already exempt from paying taxes as a chatity?

If you go back up to @Amulek's post, there are several things -

1: 501c3 is a federal status. A 501c3 status impacts certain types of taxes - but as a federal status, it only guarantees certain kinds of tax relief for federal taxes.

2: The issue here is about unemployment taxes. Unemployment programs are handled by the states - and so unemployment taxes are mandated by states. While some states exclude certain types of organizations from paying unemployment taxes, others do not. Wisconsin requires 501c3 organizations to pay unemployment taxes. In Michigan, where I live, a 501c3 has an interesting option. They do not have to pay unemployment taxes if they choose not to, however, they are then required to reimburse the state dollar for dollar whatever is expended for unemployment. For a variety of reasons, this is a tax break.

3: Wisconsin does exempt religious organizations from paying unemployment taxes. This is what is in question here. Does the charity organization run by a religion count as a religious organization? Religion owned organizations doesn't always count as religious for the purpose of this law - and those organizations can pay unemployment if they choose to. The catch here is that employees of a religious organization who don't pay unemployment taxes also cannot qualify to get state provided unemployment benefits.

4: When the article (linked in the OP) suggests that this could weaken the unemployment system in Wisconsin, it is merely because you could lose a percentage of revenue (as well as liabilities) - and in insurance systems, the more people pay in to the system, the more stable the system becomes, and the less of an impact administrative overhead causes.

5: Religious charities are a much easier subject for this kind of decision than are some other religion owned organizations. And the Catholic Charities self funded unemployment benefits also make this case easier. It is much more complicated to argue that a Catholic hospital system should be exempt (but based on this ruling, you could try to make a reasonable argument that they are religious). In the current employee challenged state of healthcare (Wisconsin currently has more than 1.2 million open healthcare job listings), it would seem very strange to have an employer like that eliminate such a benefit - so we may not have such a decision to look at any time soon - but, we may see some organizations use this as an attempt to cut costs - and to challenge where the line is between religious and not religious but religion owned - and also instances where there is no self-provided unemployment benefit (which would increase savings) - but where there may be a significant interest on the part of the state.

6: Should the impact become large enough to destabilize the unemployment program in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin legislature could simply end the exemption. This would not violate any sort of protected status. And the more that this law is used to apply to marginally religious applications, the easier such a change would become politically.

Edited June 8, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[longview]

If an organization is dedicated to providing actual charity whether it is counselling or donating goods and services without charge, then the government needs to keep their cotton-picking fingers off it! The "employees" that make up the organization are more likely to be volunteers that are comfortable already having sufficient means for living independently. Others may have altruistic desires for serving the poor and the afflicted and are willing to live a more modest existence.

I am retired and feel happy to serve without pay every couple weeks at the Denver Bishop's Storehouse. Interesting sidenote, this place used to have a thriving canning operation several years ago. But when busybody bureaucrats starting interfering with its traditional processes and mandating that the Church pay a stiff fee for "inspectors" to come to oversee the operation, then the Church decided to clear out the facility and bring the work to a screeching halt. Thus leaving only the shipping of goods from Salt Lake City for repackaging and transshipment to Wyoming, South Dakota, etc. It is a crying shame because there was a great deal of enthusiasm for members to engage in the canning process.

[Benjamin McGuire]

59 minutes ago, longview said:

If an organization is dedicated to providing actual charity whether it is counselling or donating goods and services without charge, then the government needs to keep their cotton-picking fingers off it! The "employees" that make up the organization are more likely to be volunteers that are comfortable already having sufficient means for living independently. Others may have altruistic desires for serving the poor and the afflicted and are willing to live a more modest existence.

I think that this is the wrong way to look at it.

First, this decision has nothing to do with the idea that these organizations are providing an actual charity. This was entirely a question about what constitutes a religious organization.

Second, the idea that the government should keep their hands off is completely nonsense. The only reason why the government allows there to be an exemption in this case is because the state expressly created that exemption. There is nothing that guarantees that exemption - it is not a right. Other states do not offer such an exemption. At the same time, this is one of the more gray areas. We wouldn't want a religious run food bank to be allowed to ignore food safety laws. We wouldn't want a charitable organization that helped with home repairs to be able to ignore work-safety laws, or to ignore building codes in the work that they perform. We wouldn't want a religious organization to be able to ignore child-labor laws. In fact, I can think of lots of situations where we want the government to treat charitable organizations just like other organizations.

Third, in following your logic, I can think of reasons why this is helpful for these kinds of organizations - but - I would go a very different direction than you go. Most of the charitable type organizations that I am familiar with do not primarily use volunteer labor - they hire from that under-serviced group as part of their mission. But there is a high turnover in this group - and this can often create problems with high costs for unemployment insurance (a penalty so to speak). The way that you correct this problem is to do what they did in Michigan - to make those organizations pay back just the costs that are assignable to them. This allows them not to have to worry so much about who they hire from the available employees - and have fewer concerns for high employee turnover. But, there is something contradictory about being a part of the social and financial safety net while refusing to help provide for that safety net for your own employees.

1 hour ago, longview said:

I am retired and feel happy to serve without pay every couple weeks at the Denver Bishop's Storehouse.

And finally, the real problem here is that since this is a question about what constitutes a religious organization - using the same criteria used in this decision, you could make the same argument that a Catholic hospital should not pay unemployment taxes - and because of that decision, that the employees of that hospital should not be qualified to collect unemployment. The hospital is not a charity. Should the government still be required to keep its hands off of it? What regulations should and shouldn't apply in that case - and how would you differentiate between them?

Should the LDS canneries not be required to comply with food handling rules?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

If an organization is dedicated to providing actual charity whether it is counselling or donating goods and services without charge, then the government needs to keep their cotton-picking fingers off it! The "employees" that make up the organization are more likely to be volunteers that are comfortable already having sufficient means for living independently. Others may have altruistic desires for serving the poor and the afflicted and are willing to live a more modest existence.

I am retired and feel happy to serve without pay every couple weeks at the Denver Bishop's Storehouse. Interesting sidenote, this place used to have a thriving canning operation several years ago. But when busybody bureaucrats starting interfering with its traditional processes and mandating that the Church pay a stiff fee for "inspectors" to come to oversee the operation, then the Church decided to clear out the facility and bring the work to a screeching halt. Thus leaving only the shipping of goods from Salt Lake City for repackaging and transshipment to Wyoming, South Dakota, etc. It is a crying shame because there was a great deal of enthusiasm for members to engage in the canning process.

Ummmm……no. Non-profit organizations are not usually staffed by volunteers and/or the independently wealthy.

[longview]

On 6/8/2025 at 11:13 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The only reason why the government allows there to be an exemption in this case is because the state expressly created that exemption.

The government does NOT need to regulate everything in sight. In the words of a wise man - - -

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

― Ronald Reagan

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

The government does NOT need to regulate everything in sight. In the words of a wise man - - -

Unemployment insurance is not the regulation of everything in sight. It isn't really regulation at all - and certainly not the sort of thing that Reagan was interested in. He had no interest while he was President, in cutting the program - he expected that unemployment costs would go down if unemployment went down (which it does).

Regardless, there are a lot of areas where we really need the help of government regulation, and I mentioned a few of them. So, rather than tossing out some sort of gut reaction - that any government engagement is some sort of overreach, why don't you try and add something intelligent to the conversation.

[The Nehor]

On 6/9/2025 at 3:51 PM, longview said:

The government does NOT need to regulate everything in sight. In the words of a wise man - - -

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

― Ronald Reagan

Reagan sure loved beating up strawmen.

Also kind of contradictory when you say this when you are in the government. Like that governor recently telling people not to trust the government. “YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!”

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Reagan sure loved beating up strawmen.

Also kind of contradictory when you say this when you are in the government. Like that governor recently telling people not to trust the government. “YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!”

Context helps a lot with this one.

That quote actually begins with the words. “Back then…”  

He was speaking about what it was like before he was in government, before his presidency. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/11/2025 at 5:52 PM, The Nehor said:

Reagan sure loved beating up strawmen.

Also kind of contradictory when you say this when you are in the government. Like that governor recently telling people not to trust the government. “YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!”

It was a joke delivered at a conference  of small business owners. Good jokes have some basis in reality. One might consider the audience. In this case, it accurately described their circumstances, hence the laughter in response. 

Edited June 13, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Context helps a lot with this one.

That quote actually begins with the words. “Back then…”  

He was speaking about what it was like before he was in government, before his presidency. 

Now we are told we have to make America great again like it was before Reagan by *checks notes* Reaganing harder???

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Now we are told we have to make America great again like it was before Reagan by *checks notes* Reaganing harder???

I don't know about any of that.  I was just commenting on your misunderstanding of the quote.   

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know about any of that.  I was just commenting on your misunderstanding of the quote.   

Yeah, sorry, I was out of it when I responded. Going through medication withdrawal. I barely remember posting it. Sorry, kind of dumb of me.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, sorry, I was out of it when I responded. Going through medication withdrawal. I barely remember posting it. Sorry, kind of dumb of me.

Medication withdrawal is no joke. I hope it gets better fast

[Stargazer]

On 6/11/2025 at 10:52 PM, The Nehor said:

Reagan sure loved beating up strawmen.

If you think that's a straw man, try to run a business in New York City. The place is famous for city agencies with regulations that contradict other city agencies' regulations, and the only way to survive is to figure out which ones you have to bribe to get them to look the other way.

On 6/11/2025 at 10:52 PM, The Nehor said:

Also kind of contradictory when you say this when you are in the government. Like that governor recently telling people not to trust the government. “YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!!”

Most of my working life I worked for one level of the government or the other. I am well aware that corruption in the government is not just a platitude, but a way of life. Anytime money is at issue, unscrupulous people find ways to profit. And the more money is involved, the stronger the temptation. And with government, billions of dollars/pounds/euros are at stake.

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Most of my working life I worked for one level of the government or the other. I am well aware that corruption in the government is not just a platitude, but a way of life. Anytime money is at issue, unscrupulous people find ways to profit. And the more money is involved, the stronger the temptation. And with government, billions of dollars/pounds/euros are at stake.

Corruption is a problem but regulation is not how corruption is usually implemented. There are cases where it is but that is not where corruption flourishes. In the current age of open and blatant corruption being publicly performed and announced without even the pretext of following the law I can’t get upset over regulations. Especially since with the axing of huge portions of the federal government many regulations will be unenforced anyways.

[Stargazer]

Oh nevermind. 

Edited June 13, 2025 by Stargazer