Does It Really Cost This Tea Party Congressman $200,000 to Feed His Family?

If you think it's coveting to desire fairness and justice...well...God help you. You obviously have a very different Bible to mine, in particular the Old Testament prophetic literature, which I suggest you read, starting with Isaiah 58. Otherwise, this is going to degenerate into a dialogue of the deaf. The reason why I think individuals having an obscenely large amount of wealth is usually a Bad Thing has nothing to do with covetousness but everything to do with power. The very rich wield a dangerously large amount of economic, cultural and political power, most of them to further their own ends. Granted, there are honourable exceptions, such as Bill Gates (q.v.), but they are few and far between. Take Rupert Murdoch for example, proprietor of NewsCorp/ News International (Fox News, Sky. The Times, The Sun etc). A very wealthy and very powerful man. Political parties in the UK have to be nice to Rupe if they want to get elected. This dates back at least to the British 1992 general election when 'The Sun won it (for the Conservatives)'. Then, Tony Blair becomes Murdochs new best friend in 1995, Murdoch switches support to his New Labour project in return for rather generous tax breaks at the expense of the rest of us, a lo and behold, Labour wins the 1997 general election. Blair is godfather at Murdoch's daughter's baptism in the River Jordan in 2005, but then Rupe falls out with Blair's successor Gordon Brown, switches his support back to the Conservatives who win the 2010 general election. Then we also find that one of News International's newspapers, The News of the World, has been hacking the cell phones of large numbers of people (celebs, members of the royal family, murder victims etc) and that the British police have been assisting in covering this up, in return for luxury breaks at Murdoch-company-owned hotels and health spas, and that the Conservatives gave a job to the former editor of the News of the World very probably in return for Murdoch's political support.

Now, think long and hard about where there is any justice in the above.

Then again, heck, if you think taxation is theft, why tax anyone anything at all? Go on, go right ahead! Nothing to pay for education, roads,

 

First there is nothing in Isaiah 58 that addresses the lefts view of these things. They key to this discussion is the defining of fairness and justice. If someone is blessed more than me I do not see that as a justice or fairness issue. Such a view always degenerates into bitter jealousy.

Covetousness is a result of looking at what others have and wanting it. We are not to do that as Christians but only look to God for our provisions.

Luk_12:15 And he said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

Rom_1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,

Rom_7:8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

Eph_5:3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.

Col_3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

 

I personally do not want what others have. I have enough. I do want people to have a fair deal, so I think your whole covetousness obsession is a straw man, so I won't engage that anymore as it is irrelevant.

When you've had a chance to read my edited post above, let me know how you would sort out rich and powerful men like Murdoch.

Also, I'd like to know whether you think taxation is theft. Yes or no.

 

How convenient

Taxation is not theft. Wealth redistribution is. I believe Murdoch is a strawman so I will not engage it as it is irrelevant.

 

So you won't engage with the facts. Sounds to me like you know you've lost the argument.

All taxation, unless perhaps regressive, involves an element of redistribution. So it seems to me that you think that taxationis theft. Hmmm....

 

What's being ignored is that the wealth in question is not always merely a matter of being "blessed more". Notice the key terms, "power". ("The very rich wield a dangerously large amount of economic, cultural and political power, most of them to further their own ends..." followed by examples).

Hence, corporate power being often mixed up in government. It's not just about the government giving [all the] money to the poor!

The defense is always:

1) This focus on the poor who made "bad choices" (including, supposedly those assumed to be deliberately misusing the system (While the rich are those who've made "the right choices")

2) God has "blessed" people and determined who is rich, so questioning this is "coveting".

But it's often not that simple. Those with that power are still sinners too. They often forget, if not openly reject Luke 12:15 and the others. Those passages aren't waived for them.

This can be turned around by saying that if God allows the government to tax people to support the poor, then it is just as much covetousness and envy to be so angry about what what the poor are [supposedly] getting. That seems a bit more ironically ridiculous than envying the rich!

After this, we get:

3) Life isn't fair.

True, but then that too goes both ways; so people on either side still have the right to demand more justice.

 

:applause::thumbs:. Look at the way that your government and ours bent over backwards to bail out the banks and other financial institutions with taxpayers' money in the wake of the collapse of Lehmans' three years ago this week...

[ETA - Here's a summary of the Dirty Digger's companies' phone-hacking antics]

 

Does it really cost you what you make to feed your family? When it comes right down to it, who says you get more than two rooms in your house? Who says you get a house? Go green and live in a thatch hut.

Heck, just quit breathing and contributing to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere!

Then we can dibby up the resources you've been hoarding among those more deserving.

 

Not at all. Since you refused to engage the facts at your convenience I thought I might try my hand at it.

I said taxation is not theft so your accusation is false and based on a false premise and you have now degraded this conversation along with your willingness to ignore the issue I brought up.

It is false that all taxation is some form of welath redistribution. That mentality is a natural progression of your world view. The foundation of American government (which has been distorted by the left over the years) is limited government to avoid this nonsense.

 

If Murdoch is breaking the law then he should be prosecuted.

If Murdoch is not breaking the law but is doing something that doesn't sit well with you - then try to change the law.

Either way, taking money from a whole class of people because you don't like something that one person is doing is not justice and is not fair.

Taxation in general? No

Targeted taxation based on wealth redistribution? Yes

 

Then if they have done something illegal prosecute them. It is still stealing if I go to a corrupt man's house and rob him regardless of how he obtained it.

Over generalizations will discredit your argument. But there is a large segment of the poor who are suffering form this very thing. Stealing from the rich to give to them does not help them.

I have never heard this combination. But wanting what belongs to others is that very thing.

And you are doing with the rich the very thing you claim others are doing with the poor. Be careful of having a lack of consistency in your application.

God never said to use the government to support anyone.

[/quote]After this, we get:

3) Life isn't fair.

True, but then that too goes both ways; so people on either side still have the right to demand more justice.[/QUOTE]

A very very warped sense of justice.

 

Easier said than done! Particularly if the rich man is in bed with the government.

 

Same question to you. PLus, how is the poor man supposed to change the law when the rich hold the levers of power?

 

That would be vigilante justice. But it's the government we're talking about, and what that would amount to would be giving them financial favors, and then taking some of it back.

And that's the biggest overgeneralization. Or at least one insinuated by focusing so much on "taking from someone else to give to the poor". We're talking about economic injustice in general, and it always becomes turned back into "stealing from others to give the poor a free ride". The issue goes way beyond just social assistance.

You're the one who mentioned "blessed" regarding wealth. Forgive me if you don't advocate the second part of that, but that's usually where it leads.

No I'm not. Because I don't deny that there are poor who abuse/misuse the system. I just say that that is blown out of proportion, and used as a smokescreen for other sources of the financial problems.

I'm not saying He did. Still, in complaining about taxes, and then pointing at what the poor supposedly have (whether right or wrong), you're the one doing the same thing you claim others are doing.

How? Conservatives are usually the ones who utter that phrase, when they finally admit lopsidedness in the system. But they should realize the same thing when they want to blame others for taxes. And of they feel they have the right to demand correction of what they see is wrong, then they should grant others the same right as well, and not accuse them of stuff like "covetousness" when both are really doing the same thing.

 

All taxation takes something from someone and gives it to someone else. If everyone ended up even-steven there would be no purpose in assessing the tax in the first place.

On the other hand, in any kind of deal both parties think they came out ahead. For example, one guy has two footballs and another, two basketballs. They trade one for one. Each is happier after the trade. If one guy wanted two basketballs more than he wanted one of each, the deal would not be made.

But when it comes to the assets of a nation, in the US 20% control 80% of the private assets and they are the same ones who control the public assets. What will life be like when the top 20% own 98% of the assets and control the public assets?

 

I am sorry but that is just weird.

That is what you want, take from the rich to redistruibute their wealth because you are afraid they obtained it by dishonest means.

Which is a farse. The justice you think you give to one becomes and injustice to another.

If they did not contribute to earn what they have then it is a free ride. There is not other way to see it.

Yes you do because the same is done by the left where the rich are concerned. And to add to the lefts blown out of proportion claim of dishonest gain by the rich once you get past the false notion that is the more than a few then your economic justice argument falls apart.

sure you did:

The poor are brought up by folks like your self to demand higher taxes on the rich. You you all will quit bringing them up so will we. Of course then you have no reason to unfairly tax the rich at a higher rate.

This is so convoluted I cannot follow it.

 

As Nick Carnovale often said, "50 years ago I couldn't lift $50 worth of food but now I can run while carrying it one hand."

 

So "the poor man" doesn't have any power to change the laws to stop one rich man from abusing society because "the rich hold the levers of power"...

... but "the poor man" does have the power to take away money from an entire class of the same rich that "hold the levers of power"?

How exactly does that work?

 

Because it helps that there is a vested interest in governments bringing tax dollars into the Treasury coffers; government-sponsored prosecutions however are much more likely to (a) collide with the aforementioned vested interest because it is a direct attack on that individual and (b) be criticised as politically-motivated. Taxation policies are broad-brush and don't target any particular rich individual and so are less likely to come up against that form of opposition (that doesn't stop them squealing of course like Fleming). In short, it's a lot easier for governments to trim the wings of the rich and powerful through fiscal measures than through the judiciary.