Again, this is from listening to Walter Williams, a very intelligent conservative mind.

Democrats speak of their morality when it comes to social/economic issues like feeding the poor. My personal thought is, if they feel the poor should be fed, they should do it. However, what they do instead is take the property of others, through the income tax, and give it to people to whom it doesn't belong.

Another word for this: Stealing.

Kind of hard to masquerade as a moral person when you think stealing is the greatest thing to ever happen to America.

Don't get me wrong. I fully agree with DONATING to the poor, and do it often (not pan-handlers, but to organizations). However, I don't threaten to take my neighbors house if he doesn't. The government does.

Please, someone justify this logically for me, not emotionally please (if you can resist).

Any chances to get you to elaborate on this please?

Basically he is saying that the Democrats desire to take income tax (take money) from some groups of people, who have rightfully earned this money, or recieved in some other perfectly legal manner, and give that money to other groups of people, whom the Democrats feel are more deserving of that money than the people who have earned it.

This is stealing.It cannot be charity, because with private charity, the giver is willfully donating his own money to the poor. When the government engages in such actions however, they place a gun to the giver's head, forcefully take the money, and then give it to the poor. Republicans have also been guilty of it many times.

Could you give some current or past examples of this?(Oh! And I believe that you're kidding about the gun part, right? )

There may be no literal "gun to the head". But force is used. You are well aware of what the IRS/Government does to people they catch not paying income taxes. So force is used. Maybe a better word than stealing is armed robbery (thats two words though...).

I feel Ben-T's elaboration was complete. However, if you require more, please let me know. All I said was that the definition of stealing is:

1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
(dictionary.com)

I then said that this is what the government does with my income tax. They may have some legal right or they may not (861). However, they do not have my permission.

Well, politics is all about taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, right?


Here's the thrust of my hesitation - Why not make *all* income tax voluntary?

I didn't mean to end discussion on it!

Perhaps one of the underlying questions is this:
What rights and demands does the government of a Nation-State have over its citizens? Can the govt. demand that you give your life, or kill another? Can they take half the money you pay in income taxes and use it for death and destruction, on the false premise that they are protecting you from faraway goblins, about whom they are lying?

Yes, unfortunately, it appears that 'the people' - from whom, theoretically, all rights are derived - have abdicated to the government, who takes what it wishes to take.

Assuming we're of voting age, it appears that somehow 'we voters' have allowed the govt. to become the very monster it had all the potential to become.

I understand that the govt. has the right to tax, and to destroy. That doesn't make it easy, nice, simple, fun, or fair.

True story: IRS auditor is auditing the tax return of a pompous Christian who has, in fact, donated less than ten percent of his gross income to his charities. He has made other errors on his tax declaration that cause him to owe a substantial amount. Then he begins to protest about the cruel power of the IRS, the government, and about justice and injustice. The IRS auditor looks him squarely in the face and says, "According to chapter 13 of Romans, which you are pledged to obey, the government is the minister of God; it does not weild the sword in vain; and you are commanded to pay tax to whom tax is due. Now, sir, would you please sign the agreement that you owe the tax?"

The government is something created to protect its citizens. Without a relatively strong official government, we would have a de facto government run by warlords and those with the ability to express control over other people.

If there were no source of income, there would be no government. Unless you are thinking about a utopian system, where everyone pitches in - volunteers time and / or money to make the gov't run, then Taxes are necessary. Another problem with the 'volunteer' idea is that otherwise you create influence on policy based on how much money you have - and that becomes money-making scheme. You'd get significant influence over policy.

IMHO, government as-a-business only goes so far. The idea that you get more votes if you pay more taxes... What about the military? Does volunteering your life to protect your contry get you anything else, or is money the only factor? All this thinking, IMHO, looks past what government is supposed to do - protect its citizens.

Of course, the big debate - what do we need protecting from? Start with the basics ... military, police, and fire. But even then you start getting into debates. How much military, and what is 'protecting'?

The war in Iraq, for example. The neocon rationale behind invading Ira is that it will help to protect Americans by protecting businesses. Make a platform where businesses can influence policy in Iraq, then Iraq will not want to go to war. (of course, there are a grip of suppounding, complicating issues) Therefore, we are protcecting Americans from Iraq by invading. But is it protction we need?

Another issue - environmental regulations. Take leaded gasoline. Without regulations, we would still have leaded gas making people sick. (It actually tok us a damned long time to get those regs in place, as the oil companies knew that the lead additive was a potent neurotoxin before they ever put it in gasoline) Of course, there is debate here, to. As Boon mee, BBY, and others will no doubt say, there are a lot of environmental regulations that are really over the top, poorly thought out, etc.

Some feel we need to be protected from the regulations that are supposed to protect us!

What exactly does welfare do to protect Americans? What about Social Security? Its a big debate, but I, for one, try to keep in mind what these things actually do, and what they are suppose to do. Quite often it is not the same thing.

Then of course, there is the cost / benefit assesment. The war in Iraq is fantastically expensive - is it worth doing? Are there better ways of achieve some of the same goals?

What about environmental regulations? What cost is put on health and safety? It makes no sense to argue that there is no cost - there is. Health has a price.

Money has to be protected too. Money, sad but true, equates in broad terms to freedom. The more money you have the more freedom you have to do what you want and to influence others to do what you want. This is a nation where freedom is valued and independence is valued very highly.

Again, when do you have to be protected from other people's freedoms? Certainly you would have to be protected from someone else's right to be an arsonist.


A could ramble on with questions for a while, but back to the topic at hand ....

What is the government donating to the poor supposed to protect its citizens from? How is it supposed to work? Does it? Why doesn't it, etc?

This is a very interesting question, and where I was hoping this thread would go.

As for poverty programs in the USA, Clinton and his Congress supposedly abolished "Poverty as we Know it." Has the poverty rate gone down since then?

Of course, we shouldn't throw good money after bad, but that's just as true in the War against Terrorism, as it is in the War Against Poverty. Some will say that the FEDERAL govt. only has a few very limited mandates in the Constitution; they have a point. But some of those same people don't think the Constitution's mandate to have Congress declare war means anything.

One way or the other, the USA needs better, cheaper health care. Doctors ride to their clinics in luxury cars to treat middle class workers who don't have adequate health insurance, if any.

The USA has serious problems with drugs and crime, which have NEVER been solved by any methods that were used.

The quotation in the original post says that if Democrats want the poor to fed and sheltered, they should do it themselves. Is that what Republicans call 'compassionate conservatism?'

If Republicans are so Christian, why don't their local churches feed the poor and do the other things Jesus commanded them to do for the poor?

Fit:
Many churches, including everyone that I have ever attended, do feed the poor. We walk for cancer (crop walk), stuff shoe boxes for children across the world, and do 100 other charity events I'm not familiar with. Compassion, for me, exists outside the government where my donation is voluntary and not forced.

Is a forced donation compassionate? I don't think so. Neither is donating other people's money.

Here is what I meant by my quote: Democrats/Libs should give their own money to the poor; not other people's. It would be frustrating to have a person in your community ramble on about how we need to beat poverty, and then require everyone else to pay for it. For example, I'm not exactly sure of the numbers, but I know that John Kerry made FAR more than Bush last year, and yet paid far less in taxes. The same politicians calling for higher taxes (on both sides), also pay a lot of lawyers to find loopholes for themselves. (There is a word for this: hypocrisy). Also to note, you can always donate as much as you want to the government. Therefore, if you really want to help the poor, you can always donate and extra $1000 to the government. That is, if you feel the government is the best way to help the poor, which many don't.

Instead of campaigning to raise taxes and hurt our economy, why not do fundraisers for the government? I know our military does fundraisers. I got my car washed by the Army Reserve not 3 weeks ago. Donated MY money, not some rich person's.

A quick aside about taxes rates and government revenue:
Wednesday, our government collected more money in one day than it ever has before. This beats the previous record set in 2000. We collected $61 billion. I know it's just a one-day stat, but overall, the government revenue has climbed since we lowered taxes....back on topic now.

Also, I am one of the few who feel the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It is a document of law. Laws are not passed to flex, or breath. I believe the true Constitution (or at least the true interpretation) no longer exists in our country. I am also pissed at Congress for shirking it's duties to declare war. Instead, vain politicians don't want to stick their neck on the line. Just look at how John Kerry played his role as a Senator. Instead of declaring war, he gave the President the right to war. Then he was able to say all that BS about not supporting the war and weasel out of the vote by saying that he only conditionally supported the war and the conditions were not met. It is infuriating.

No, the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. Also, the broad preamble cannot be used as justification given the content of the rest of the work. Expat, I know you like to quote life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as justification for most things. However, almost anything is justified under that clause. Furthermore, the actual text of the law, outside the preamble, is clear that this is supposed to be taken literally, and that States are more powerful than the Federal government. Hence, the absurdity of Roe v. Wade; the recent decision against state laws concerning medical marijuana; etc.

Expat:
I'm not calling for all taxes to be voluntary. I agree with you that our government does need a dependable source of income annually to perform it's duties. However, no one here will deny that our government is bloated beyond belief. Wasteful spending, redundancy, and corruption abound because there is too much money in the system. Simple logic dictates that if we cut back drastically on the money they had to spend, only the most important would get the funds, and there would be less room for graft, waste, etc.

Now a problem with this: My logic operates under the assumption that congress won't spend us into an enormous debt, but that they would cut spending instead. This is a HUGE assumption. The only real way I can see it happening is through a program like TABOR in Colorado, or Gan in California back in '79.

Government donating to poor:
It Does not work. Instead, it rewards failure instead of success. Also, it retards the drive to become successful. Why work that introductory, minimum-wage job if you can receive almost as much doing absolutely nothing (or even something illegal on the side).

Also, think about it this way. Most people will agree that it is better to give a pan handler a meal than money. This is because money can be abused. Giving money to the poor doesn't help as much as giving shelter and food to them. Running shelters, food kitchens, and meals on wheels should be more of a priority then handing out a check. Even food stamps are abused. If we new the poor were being fed, housed, and educated, I would feel that my responsibility to them is done. It is not my responsibility to provide them with money to spend on luxury items. Attaining luxury items would be a powerful incentive to work! Also, I wouldn't bar them from coming to the food kitchens and shelters because they picked up a low paying job. It is something to reward, not punish.

Another reason I disagree with government paying the poor, is that it is quickly viewed as a right of the poor people. If they have to go to a food kitchen, they would see that they are only being fed by the generosity of others. A right to other people's money is abhorrent.

I think that in the past, as well as the present, charities have failed to achieve their goals of taking care of the indignant.

Our country had to step in sooner, or later, or we would of had a gargantuan crime situation on our hands, as well as a terrible health situation.

Here are some interesting articles on the evolution of welfare:

How Welfare Began in the United States

Welfare to Work: The States Take Charge

The IRS uses a thing called a "notice of levy" to seize property. Legally it takes a court order to seize a persons property. The IRS does with the mere "notice" which in fact is not a "levy" at all.
They have been doing it for some time now. It is not legal. Never has been.
The IRS has so much power of bluff that they are able to separate people from their property with a mere threat. It is called stealing! No other way to call it my friend!

Well everyone who support the progressive income tax supports the second plank in the communist manifesto. . . .

http://members.aol.com/ctgabe/communist.manifesto.02.htm
Sixth Plank: Communication
Seventh Plank: Factories and Agriculture
Eighth Plank: Labor
Nineth Plank: Regional Planning
Tenth Plank: Education
Additional tenet: Collectivizing the means of Production Additional tenet: Equalizing of Pay
Additional tenet: Redistribution of Wealth
Additional tenet: Class Struggle
Additional tenet: Abolishing the Family
General Links
Second Plank: A heavy progressive income tax on earnings

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
- Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism

Christians, however, were disobedient to their ruling authorites on numerous occasions . . . .

The government has all the rights and abilities given to it in the Constitution of the United States of America.

It does not at all go beyond that. At least it doesn't do it legally anyways.

And through the pagan document called the constitution, your doctrines of commuism are being spread quite nicely througout America, "comrade." Your "socialist security;" your cooperative farming; your public (indoctrination) schools; etc . . .

Fundamentalist "nut jobs" are all the same. Be they muslim, christian, or IRS mercenaries.
Bad people, and they should "go away".

Lets see this goes right here . . . .




Quote from the athiest website author about people who poison the well. . .

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/#ad_hominem
'Certain criminally stupid elements of society like to pretend that a preemptive attack on the source of an assertion (or better yet, the entire group that leans that way) substitutes for having to listen, understand and form a cogent counter-argument. This is known as "poisoning the well." Only the truly mindless dullards will ever use it, but if and when they do, just point it out in catchy graphic form to the rest of the forum-goers.'

<envelope please!> And your answer is:

*Underlining by Grizzly Online Source

Now the next question...?

Sure "Comrade" where does it say the rag called the constitution overrules the word of God? Answer: It doesn't.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Hey guys, Shamgar says Im a communist. You guys think I'm a communist? Anybody?

Oh and yes, here in the United States, the Constitution overrules the Bible in public life.

The Bible is a personal document. The Constitution public.

Well "Comrade" Christians are "public" with their "private" beliefs . . . and how do you keep God out of "public" matters?

Exodus 7:1 And the Lord said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh; and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. 2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh. And he will send away the sons of Israel from his land. 3 And I will harden the heart of Pharaoh. And I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. 4 And Pharaoh will not listen to you. And I will lay My hand on Egypt, and will bring My armies, My people, the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt with great judgments. 5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord when I send forth My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.

You keep god out of public matters with the "wall" Thomas Jefferson sought to place between Church and State.

Let's count the amount of times that meshing Church, regardless of what faith, and State has turned out to be a good thing....oh yeah 0.

Human beings are imperfect, and as such are inherently insufficient to interpret the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran into public matters.

I do not Ben! Be rest assured!

Oh boy a paper wall . . . . I'll bet even you could break through a paper wall . . . well maybe not. . .



See "comrade" you forgot to look in the Scriptures as there is no spearation of church and state and the ending is happy . . . .



Well "comrade" I have no doubt you have no clue what the Scriptures say/mean . . .

1 Cor 2: 14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them , because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But the spiritual one discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one.

Ecc 7:20 (1) Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

However, there when the righteous fall/sin they are quickly restored by God . . . .

While I don't deny the existence of god I don't pretend to profess the "word of god".
Tell.... how do you know who or what god is? I'm curious.
Sounds like you may have solved one the greatest mysteries of life!

I would be wasting my time explaining it to a person who "poisons the well" such as you . . . . .

Perhaps the point is that the USA is not a 'Christian nation' and never could be.

However, can anybody name the commonwealth composed primarily of Christian pacifists who managed their commonwealth very prosperously (and almost communally in some cases, voluntarily) for 70 years without having a standing army, without being involved in violent conflict, giving freedom of worship to all people, and living at peace with the indigenous peoples whose lands they purchased?

Perhaps? The USA is certainly not a Christian nation . . . pagans like you have free reign . .certainly with pseudo christians like GWB it never will be a Christian nation . . . but then again . . there are still a few real Christians hanging around . . . .

Shamgar my dear venomous fellow. Perhaps you should study some of the fundamentals of your own religion rather than playing with the cute graphics.

You have accused me of being an atheist and BenT of being a commie. You couldn't more off base.

I'm the dirty stinking commie and BenT is the no good "well poisoning" atheist.

Go back to the drawing board.

Apparently Bob has hit a nerve here.

It does show how all these extremists share a very similar narrow mindedness.

Excuse me, sir? Was that addressed to me? Perhaps we are brothers in Christ. Why do you reply to my post and say I am one of the 'pagans'? Are you assuming that anybody who doesn't agree with you 100% is not a believer? I already accepted everything you wrote about Romans 13, which is quite unusual.

I agree that the USA is not a Christian nation. However, for the sake of civil discourse among virtually anonymous strangers, I often put a 'perhaps' or 'maybe' in some of my sentences, because I can sound very haughty and proud when I just express my extreme opinion (such as "Jesus is a pacifist"). Furthermore, if you'll look back at my statement, the word 'perhaps' was an adverb at the beginning of the sentence, modifying the phrase 'the point is.' Pardon me for being pedantic; I teach English.

I agree that GWB appears to be a pseudo-Chrsitian. Most of his public anouncements are so simply monotheistic that they appease Jews, Moslems, and liberal non-orthodox Christians. If G. W. Bush truly were a disciple of Jesus Christ, he never would have placed one hand on a Bible and sworn to God that he would uphold the Constitution and defend the country from all enemies foreign and domestic, etc.

On the other hand, it accomplishes nothing - in trying to declare the truth, or to win over somebody in an argument - to refer to the Constitution of the USA as a 'rag.' That does remind me, though, what Isaiah wrote and Paul quoted: "All of our righteousnesses are like [bloody menstrual] rags."

God bless everybody, especially our enemies and the pagans.

Ah "Yes" since brothers don't preach your sermon.




Well, "Comrade" if you knew anything about your religion (communism) you would know that the founder , Lenin, was an athiest antichrist. So why don't you go back into your corner and plot the "overthrow" of your bedroom.

By your definition, any and all who do not support turning the USA into a Christian Theocracy are communists, correct?

"Comrade" your planks of the communist manifesto are already in place in the USA . . .you already are a practicing commie. . . .

Really? How so?

And you still didn't answer the question. Do you believe any and all who would oppose turning the US into a christian theocracy is a communist?

Ahh! The self righteous christian venomous vitriol. What a refreshing change from the poor downtrodden jihadist ooze from the Canadian cesspool. Though both amount to the same dang thing!


Shamgar what nationality are you? Can the American public school system take the blame for your common denominator?

Where is Oslamani whn you need him

I can't believe I am saying this, but I wonder if he is the sane one now that we the have Shamgar; "The stranger", the slayer of 600 Philistine interlopers who terrorized the land of Isreal.

There are conservatives and there are not conservatives yet they are not liberal nor are they moderates. But they do go THUMP THUMP INTO THE NIGHT!



Yeah. Ben T You are the Marxist Guru of the site all right 5555

As I am always polite, sweet, gentle and considerate of all views in a touch feely kind of way Which I AM!!!

T HA T
IS
A LL!

You can justify anything you want wny way you want. life liberty and the persuit of happiness is no different that 'the War of Terrorism' - both can justify just about any stance you wish to take.

But, you know, some stances just don't make sense. And there is a balance that must be struck. Most certainly, freedom to do what you want with your money is included in 'life liberty and the persuit of happiness' (Which, back to my last post, are things that need to be protected) But how to you justify freedom to do what you want with your money with the relative freedom from crime provided by an effective police force?




There are 2 pratical problems with that that I see. Having worked at a non-profit for years, I know that donted income is not really predictable. The second is that it opens up area for lobyists to have direct influence in government policy. Their interests sometimes conflict with the American People's interests. For example, the latest energy bill relaxing murcury regulations for one particular business, or the current debate of ethanol subsidies.

As I will mention in a little bit, I think that graft is a giant problem, leading to many of the things you dislike about government.




I know you aren't. But what is OK to 'steal' for and what isn't? (another coment about stealing ... Does a bowling league steal dues from its players? If they don't pay, they don't get to pay. Yes, a bowler can go somewhere else, but so can an American. move to a different state, different country, etc. )



Yeah, this is my main problem with this, too. Apparantly, neoconseravtives think that a huge debt is 'acceptable' Other politicians from all stripes are quite willing to make a few concessions for things that look good in the polls.

Also, I see graft as the number one problem re: efficiency in governemnt. I mentioned in another thread, I just talked to a guy who owns a pool building company in Cali. He says the standard procedure is to offer pools at significant discounts (50%or more) to legislators. (There was a cali state sen who just sold his house to a lobbyist for $700,000 moer than it was worth) He says many of the initially well meaning regulations (for example EPA, workplace safety, etc) are hijacked by lobbyists who have something to gain from the wording of the regulation. For example, I mentioned the EPA legislating a specific technology instead of the goal, and how that results in higher emmissions and more expense for businesses (like requiring a particular kind of smokestack scrubber) This fellow said, in his experience, most likely what happens is that the smokestack scrubber company greases a few palms and gets the legislators to require their particular product. This fellow said he's been in number of quite similar situations himself. Standard Operating Procedure.

Now - since the policians and regulators themselves have their own fiscal situation in mind, why would they worry about running up a national debt, or even reducing waste? They BENEFIT from waste.




I agree mostly that it does not work. At least the system can be abused easily. (welfare worked for my own parents, a long time ago)

I see a lot of value in a safety net. It provides a sense of security, it keeps people from being homeless, it prevents crime and disease.
HOWEVER, the system ought to stress the values we want it to. This is where I agree with you. We need to tie any kind of welfare benefit with education (and grades in particular) and/or menial labor. Then adjust the system based on what we see happening. I do NOT think that ebcause the system in currently inefficient that a system is impossible. I would think, though, that an efficient system, stressing capability, would be a lot cheaper and more effective than the one we currently have.

Incidentally - There is a reason why welfare recipients get food stamps instead of food. It was more efficient and better for the welfare recipients just to get food shipments directly from (american) farmers. Can you guess why we switched?

Of course, Ben think YOU are .....

A little joke. I know your ae realitvely reasonable, Ben T.

Say - can we take Shagmar and OSmanli and give them their own thread?

Reread this; its very important to those that are going to live in the USA. *Underlining by Grizzly


Really, Shamgar? Are you professing that you NEVER veer from the Lord's word?

<Note to self: Confused over the title of this thread! Maybe this thread needs to be moved to: Religion and Philosophy section?>

He NEVER veers from the word of god! Making him more holy than all the apostles combined!

Hahahah Expat great idea! Shamgar vs OsManli, fight to the death!

Oh I see you can use your religion/communism to "prove" your point but I can't use mine truth/Christianity . . . sounds fair . . . to you.

I do not know what you're talking about, Shamgar! Are you going to answer the question that I gave you earlier?

Ima sure you wouldn't but then again anyone who worships and athiest based religion like communism isn't too bright to start with . . . .

Psalm 14:1 To the chief Musician, [A Psalm] of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

What is your basis for calling any of us communists again? Is that just the knee jerk lable you give to all who disagree with you?

Well, Shamgar, seeing that you are not going to answer my question that I proposed to you earlier, and the ONLY reply that I can get from you is either name calling or bible quotations, I will have to consider YOU as a FORUM TROLL -- something of which I will ignore! *And, I suspect that people should be keeping an eye on!*

Romans 13:
Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow
-New Living Translation

I happen to prefer the KJV:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.


Im not sure what I think these mean, but they seem clear (at first glance anyway). This doesn't say the Constitution is higher than God, and I don't believe it is. But it says we must follow the rule of law. Just as Jesus said we were to give our taxes to Ceaser ("give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's).

I think a good document has been perverted into a de facto communist manifesto.

Even if the income tax, as it exists today, is encompassed by the 16th Amendment, it is still stealing.

Well since Romans 13 is only talking about a righteous government . . . you obviously don't know what you are talking about.





and since it is a parable that Christ was speaking to the Pharisees you obviously don't have a clue on this one either. . . .





Wow a communist keeping an eye on Christian . . .boy that is out of character . . . .
Oh no he going to pout since I am not going to play his little commie games.