Christian Robin Hoods

Relief efforts are, and should be, the domain of the government. It would be great if every person would contribute to help those victims of disaster, but it doesn't happen. The price of civilization is taxes. How much have any of those bashing aid, given to the relief of the victims of this storm, to Katrina victims, to the ranchers in Colorado who have lost their herds to the blizzards, to the fire victims in SoCal, and on and on?

 

It would be a lot easier to that if the lion's share of my money was not taken by the various levels of government.

I argue against government taking money by force to give to another person on moral grounds. Taxes should be collected for legitimate government services, such as the military, not to redistribute money from one person to another.

 

Ken, this isn't random redistribution of wealth. It is using taxes for relief efforts of victims of natural disasters. I would not support taking money from one to give to people for no good reason. As has been pointed out, providing for the general welfare of the population is a legitimate and constitutional principle.

If you believe it should be done without the government's help, again I ask...how much have you given to relief efforts, e.g. through the American Red Cross and other organizations? Some jobs are too big and require too much coordination to be effectively and rapidly deployed in times of emergency. Granted, FEMA sucks at it, but that doesn't negate the idea of relief being a legitimate govermental role. It certainly isn't all, and can't be all, but it can help. It still requires private relief efforts as well.

 

Again I state, it would be a whole easier and more could be given if the various levels of government were not taking the lion's share of my money - and the rest of the middle class.

 

It is the gov't domain in what kind of gov't? A Representative Constitutional Republic or a Socialist one?

 

This same dilemma was faced by Davy Crockett in the link I posted. Was he wrong in the beginning or the end of the essay?

 

Both actually, at least in regards to our constitution. All that a constitutional republic means is that we elect officials to represent us and that they are governed by a set of rules, i.e. the constitution. In our case the constitution specifically outlines that the legislature is responsible to provide for the general welfare. The constituiton does NOT outline how tax money should be spent. The ONLY limitations on taxation are based in the type of tax enacted.

 

Gentlemen, Davey Crockett was but one man. The logical place to draw the line is the constitution, and in the case of taxation and social welfare programs, the constitution is silent. Social welfare programs are not prohibited in any way, shape, or form, nor is the power of the legislature to use tax money in whatever way they deem fit. As outlined in the necessary and proper clause of Article I sec. 8. Again the only consitutional limitation is the type of tax enacted.

 

I am perfectly able to listen to, or read, opposing viewpoints without needing courage. In fact, I am also perfectly capable of changing my own viewpoints if a convincing argument is given.

In this case, I will have to wait to listen to the sermon, as I do not have a lot of time. I'll let you know what I think when I get around to it.

 

IMO, if everyone Christian gave 10% of their earnings to church and charity, and churches became more concern with helping the poor and the unfortunate instead of wondering what the next building project would be, then government would only have to provide for the basics: defense, roads, prisons, etc.

 

I disagree. But even if the U.S. constitution did not prohibit the federal government from doing so, then morality certainly would.

 

I don't think so. Many of the people who push the idea of the government taking money by force from one person to give to another person actually want more such government programs. It is the basic socialist mindset to have bigger government, not smaller.

 

So very sad to see the selfishness that is rampant in Christianity today.

 

So, you've noticed it too.

 

Yes, it is, MP. It is even sadder when Christians want to use government force to animate their selfishness. :tear:

 

Okay, I understand your argument against it based on morality, although I don't agree. However, since you seem to disagree about the constitution would you please care to point out the article, section, clause, or amendment that forbids or limits what Congress can do with tax money? At best I think the only argument would be that the founding fathers did not intend for these programs. In that case I would argue that the founding fathers did not anticipate the sheer size of the US population, the global economy, nor huge metropolitan cities where it is virtually impossible for the poor to survive on subsistence living.

 

Discard the constitution how? Yes there is limits to the power of government, but NOT in this area. Your analogy is baseless and ridiculous, especially considering the fact that on average less than 2% of the entire federal budget, or 3% of all government spending, is for means-tested programs such as TANF.

Do you deny the fact that the bible requires us to pay taxes? Do you deny the fact the bible tells to obey the laws of the land, especially considering taxes are not against the law of God? The government should not have to force you to pay your taxes, especially if you are a Christian. If they do it is your own fault. The Bible also says you reap what you sow.

 

very, very sad! :tear: