And my question is what gives the gov’t the right to take money out of my pocket and give it to others, whether in the form of food stamps of health care?
[/quote]
you used NAACP “research” to back up your argument, so you can’t ask these questions now lol.
seriously though - taxes are taxes - what gives them the right to take money out of your pocket to provide education for the kids whose parents aren’t covering education expenses in their tax payments or to spend tax dollars on space research or to pay for gov-t officials to travel on charter flights etc etc etc.
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.
That said, welfare assuages symptoms when what we truly need are measures (education, general economic growth, employment) to right the underlying malaise.
But, since that seems too much to ask from our politicians, be thankful for the social safety net every time you pass an impoverished young man in the streets and he doesn’t kill you or take everything you have.
And my question is what gives the gov’t the right to take money out of my pocket and give it to others, whether in the form of food stamps of health care?
[/quote]
you used NAACP “research” to back up your argument, so you can’t ask these questions now lol.
seriously though - taxes are taxes - what gives them the right to take money out of your pocket to provide education for the kids whose parents aren’t covering education expenses in their tax payments or to spend tax dollars on space research or to pay for gov-t officials to travel on charter flights etc etc etc.
[/quote]
There isn’t any such right, which is my issue. Taxes aren’t taxes. There are issues the Fed Gov’t has the right to handle. Taxes towards those ends are justified.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
One is required to feed the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, harboring the harborless, visiting the sick, ransoming captives, and burying the dead.
So, although I do not believe that the government is in position to do this, the family then the local community is responsible for taking care of the sick. And, as well Doctors who have talent should give their talent or at least treasure to help with the sick.[/quote]
I have an interesting take on this. We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
The only thing that can right the underlying malaise is personal responsibility. Any sort of welfare derails that.
That makes no sense. There is significant evidence that cronic welfare increass crime, via promoting fatherless families. I think it wold be more accurate to say that anytime you pass an impoverished young man in the streets, thank the social safety net for holding him in poverty.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
And we all know that all Christians are the same, just like all Blacks are the same. Think about how stupid that statement is.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
And we all know that all Christians are the same, just like all Blacks are the same. Think about how stupid that statement is.[/quote]
Comparison fail. The label christian does denote a specific set of beliefs and behavior. So yes, Christians are, or should be, similar.
I agree with the Ganghi quote, I’m just curious what the poster meant by it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
And we all know that all Christians are the same, just like all Blacks are the same. Think about how stupid that statement is.[/quote]
Comparison fail. The label christian does denote a specific set of beliefs and behavior. [/quote]
And almost by definition, sinners and fallable.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
[/quote]
Why not. It is in our interest, therefore we as a group (government) work toward it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
And we all know that all Christians are the same, just like all Blacks are the same. Think about how stupid that statement is.[/quote]
I agree with the Ganghi quote, I’m just curious what the poster meant by it.[/quote]
I meant that Christ would have wanted us to see the poor fed, the sick cared for, orphans sheltered. If the government is trying to do those things, and you are a Christian, then it seems odd that you (not you specifically, the royal you) would get in the way.
Say it should be done better, more efficiently…fine. Argue all you want about that. But I see Christians every day complaining about how the government has no right to use their money to feed or give medical care to the poor…which is odd to me.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
[/quote]
Why not. It is in our interest, therefore we as a group (government) work toward it.[/quote]
A. Because it goes against the US Constitution.
B. It is the worst possible way to address the problem, as proven out by our “War on Poverty”
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
And we all know that all Christians are the same, just like all Blacks are the same. Think about how stupid that statement is.[/quote]
I agree with the Ganghi quote, I’m just curious what the poster meant by it.[/quote]
I meant that Christ would have wanted us to see the poor fed, the sick cared for, orphans sheltered. If the government is trying to do those things, and you are a Christian, then it seems odd that you (not you specifically, the royal you) would get in the way.
Say it should be done better, more efficiently…fine. Argue all you want about that. But I see Christians every day complaining about how the government has no right to use their money to feed or give medical care to the poor…which is odd to me.[/quote]
The majority of the money is wasted, and there is a huge diference between charity and the gov’t taking you money at the threat of violence. Chritianity teaches charity.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
[/quote]
Why not. It is in our interest, therefore we as a group (government) work toward it.[/quote]
A. Because it goes against the US Constitution.
B. It is the worst possible way to address the problem, as proven out by our “War on Poverty”[/quote]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
[/quote]
Why not. It is in our interest, therefore we as a group (government) work toward it.[/quote]
A. Because it goes against the US Constitution.
B. It is the worst possible way to address the problem, as proven out by our “War on Poverty”[/quote]
Come up with a better way, then.[/quote]
Private charity, local gov’t, state govt. In that order.
Private charity, local gov’t, state govt. In that order.
[/quote]
Then you do believe that government should see to the basic needs of its citizens…you simply think it’s a local and state concern?
And just out of curiosity, why do you prefer that the local and state governments handle the issue? Is it solely because of adherence to the Constitution, or do you have pragmatic reasons also?
Private charity, local gov’t, state govt. In that order.
[/quote]
Then you do believe that government should see to the basic needs of its citizens…you simply think it’s a local and state concern?[/quote]
I believe that gov’t at any level is a less effecient way to address the problem, but the more local you get, the greater flexability and more responsive the solution can become.
Not just blind adherence to the Constitution, but a belief in the principles of gov’t that the constitution is founded upon. The Fed Gov’t must be limited and constrained or it will eventually become oppresive. I believe we are on the cusp of that now. Additionally, if states find their own solution, as citizens we can feasably move to a state whose solution fits our own personal views. If it is handled on a national level that options is not reasonably available.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
We are given those commands for our own benefit, not the benefit of others. We are also told that there will always be poor, so I don’t think this is intended to solve the problem of the needy.[/quote]
“Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” --Gandhi[/quote]
And we all know that all Christians are the same, just like all Blacks are the same. Think about how stupid that statement is.[/quote]
I agree with the Ganghi quote, I’m just curious what the poster meant by it.[/quote]
I meant that Christ would have wanted us to see the poor fed, the sick cared for, orphans sheltered. If the government is trying to do those things, and you are a Christian, then it seems odd that you (not you specifically, the royal you) would get in the way.
Say it should be done better, more efficiently…fine. Argue all you want about that. But I see Christians every day complaining about how the government has no right to use their money to feed or give medical care to the poor…which is odd to me.[/quote]
No Christ taught to willingly give your own things to the poor. He most certainly never advocated taking by force to give to the poor.
I must have missed the story of Jesus leading a band of rebel Jews through the land stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
Additionally, much of what the government does is more correctly labeled, “stealing from the productive and giving to the lazy”.
Private charity, local gov’t, state govt. In that order.
[/quote]
Then you do believe that government should see to the basic needs of its citizens…you simply think it’s a local and state concern?
And just out of curiosity, why do you prefer that the local and state governments handle the issue? Is it solely because of adherence to the Constitution, or do you have pragmatic reasons also?[/quote]
Because the people of Texas understand the needs of Texans better than the people of New York do.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
It’s not just for the benefit of those on welfare. As a people we have an exigent (self) interest in limiting desperate poverty.[/quote]
That does not mean the Fed Gov’t should be the one to carry out action towards that end.
[/quote]
Why not. It is in our interest, therefore we as a group (government) work toward it.[/quote]
A. Because it goes against the US Constitution.
B. It is the worst possible way to address the problem, as proven out by our “War on Poverty”[/quote]