WWJC?

[LeadBolt]

Christians are commanded to help the poor, the orphans and the widows, from their own abundance. No where are they commanded to stick their hand in someone else's pocket to do so.

I support government programs to provide a safety net, but I'm not sure of the morality of taking from one person under the compulsion of the law to give to another.

This one presents a moral dilemma.

I took a trip to Seattle on interstate highways, rode on a ferry system overseen by the DHS, ate a USDA inspected steak, and took FDA approved medications. How much do I need to put back in yours and Hogan's pocket? And can I, in turn petition Exxon, Haliburton, BofA, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul for the money they took out of mine?

I agree its a moral dilemma and I'm all for welfare reform. But I'm not so sure Jesus was a libertarian.

I didn't mean to imply that He was a Libertarian, and certainly I am not, hence the statement that I am in favor of the safety net, which implies income redistribution. I also favor a graduated tax structure, as long as it is not punitive. I believe in having and paying for government services. I'm not sure how you read Libertarian into my statement or that I was asking for money back.

I believe that the government is too big and inefficient and that economic times dictate looking at government services and spending to make adjustments. Evan at the margin, I don't feel that the government (federal, state and local) should be taking more than 49.9% of each additional dollar a person makes. Since this is more than 2x's the level of government spending, it allows for a graduated structure or taking money out of one person's pocket and putting it in anothers.

[Baldy]

I took a trip to Seattle on interstate highways, rode on a ferry system overseen by the DHS, ate a USDA inspected steak, and took FDA approved medications. How much do I need to put back in yours and Hogan's pocket? And can I, in turn petition Exxon, Haliburton, BofA, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul for the money they took out of mine?

I agree its a moral dilemma and I'm all for welfare reform. But I'm not so sure Jesus was a libertarian.

kalm, you raise some good points, but I have to call you on your statement about putting money "back" in people's pockets.

That money belonged to us, and was taxed by the government. And while I understand the need to fund our federal government, I pay much more to the government every year than I spend on my own children, and that in my mind is deeply troubling. Is my duty to the government really greater than my duty to my children?

Please don't call me rich. I am not rich. I work hard and make a very good salary for sure. But what's keeping me from becoming rich is that, when all taxes are taken into account, I pay more than 50% of what I earn in some form of tax.

JJ, quit yer bitchin'. According to the Dear Leader, you're not even paying your "fair share".

[/sarcasm]

[JoltinJoe]

kalm, you raise some good points, but I have to call you on your statement about putting money "back" in people's pockets.

That money belonged to us, and was taxed by the government. And while I understand the need to fund our federal government, I pay much more to the government every year than I spend on my own children, and that in my mind is deeply troubling. Is my duty to the government really greater than my duty to my children?

Please don't call me rich. I am not rich. I work hard and make a very good salary for sure. But what's keeping me from becoming rich is that, when all taxes are taken into account, I pay more than 50% of what I earn in some form of tax.

JJ, quit yer bitchin'. According to the Dear Leader, you're not even paying your "fair share".

[/sarcasm]

Not bitching at all. Actually, looking at the bright side. When I quit what I'm doing, because my job is an unrelenting pain in the ass, and go to a job which does not require me to work 200 hours a month, the federal and state governments will subsidize about 40% of my pay cut.

[Grizalltheway]

I took a trip to Seattle on interstate highways, rode on a ferry system overseen by the DHS, ate a USDA inspected steak, and took FDA approved medications. How much do I need to put back in yours and Hogan's pocket? And can I, in turn petition Exxon, Haliburton, BofA, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul for the money they took out of mine?

I agree its a moral dilemma and I'm all for welfare reform. But I'm not so sure Jesus was a libertarian.

kalm, you raise some good points, but I have to call you on your statement about putting money "back" in people's pockets.

That money belonged to us, and was taxed by the government. And while I understand the need to fund our federal government, I pay much more to the government every year than I spend on my own children, and that in my mind is deeply troubling. Is my duty to the government really greater than my duty to my children?

Please don't call me rich. I am not rich. I work hard and make a very good salary for sure. But what's keeping me from becoming rich is that, when all taxes are taken into account, I pay more than 50% of what I earn in some form of tax.

Just need to find the right loopholes, Joe. You're a lawyer, aintcha?

[JoltinJoe]

kalm, you raise some good points, but I have to call you on your statement about putting money "back" in people's pockets.

That money belonged to us, and was taxed by the government. And while I understand the need to fund our federal government, I pay much more to the government every year than I spend on my own children, and that in my mind is deeply troubling. Is my duty to the government really greater than my duty to my children?

Please don't call me rich. I am not rich. I work hard and make a very good salary for sure. But what's keeping me from becoming rich is that, when all taxes are taken into account, I pay more than 50% of what I earn in some form of tax.

Just need to find the right loopholes, Joe. You're a lawyer, aintcha?

There are loopholes, but they don't exist for guys like me, the so-called salaray "rich." You gotta be one of the mega-rich, or slovenly rich, to be able to take advantage of the loopholes at least to a meaningful extent. I can't tell you how pissed I get when I hear on the news that some guy who can buy and sell me has a lower federal tax obligation than me.

When politicians equate people with good salaries with being rich, it's BS. You aren't really "rich" in this country if you are "salary rich." You have to have accumulated wealth to really be "rich" in this country.

[Grizalltheway]

Just need to find the right loopholes, Joe. You're a lawyer, aintcha?

There are loopholes, but they don't exist for guys like me, the so-called salaray "rich." You gotta be one of the mega-rich, or slovenly rich, to be able to take advantage of the loopholes at least to a meaningful extent. I can't tell you how pissed I get when I hear on the news that some guy who can buy and sell me has a lower federal tax obligation than me.

When politicians equate people with good salaries with being rich, it's BS. You aren't really "rich" in this country if you are "salary rich." You have to have accumulated wealth to really be "rich" in this country.

True. Read an article in Bloomberg Business Week about the top twelve loopholes the top .1%-ers use to effectively pay nothing in taxes. Pretty sickening.

[JohnStOnge]

You are correct, and that is why it is a clause. You can't tell me you read the above quote and then claim it isn't clearly stating that it isn't inferring separation of church and state. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I'm going along with a change in subject a little and I'm trying not to do that too much. But I can't resist when this particular issue comes up. You can go back and look at what was going on at the time and see that there was no general intent involving "Separation of Church and State" as most people understand it today. For example: Christian church services were being held in the House chamber very early on. You don't hire a Christian chaplain and have him lead Christian church services in the House chamber if you intended the limitation on Congress making a law with respect to the establishment of religion as meaning there would be no endorsement of or association with religion on the part of the national government. If you go with what it actually says it is not violated unless the Congress of the United States actually passes legislation with respect to the actual establishment of religion. It's pretty narrow linguistically. Not broad at all.

[JohnStOnge]

Now on to the subject of the thread.

I cringe every time I see that because people like the "progressive" Chrisitans involved contend that Jesus' directions to help the poor, etc., support the idea of government programs. Jesus did not say, "Go forth and force OTHER people to help the poor." He said "YOU go forth and help the poor."

When people like those "progressive" Chrisitans push for and support government programs to help the poor, they are engaging in efforts to force OTHER people to help the poor. That is NOT the message of Jesus as indicated by the Gospels. If they claim to follow Jesus' word, they should shut up and just do it themselves with their own resources instead of trying to confiscate resources from others. It's pretty easy to be charitable with OTHER PEOPLE'S money. Where is the nobility in that?

Evangelical Christians may not support government programs, but as a group they are generally VERY charitable with their personal funds. And THAT is what Jesus was directing people to do.

[kalm]

I took a trip to Seattle on interstate highways, rode on a ferry system overseen by the DHS, ate a USDA inspected steak, and took FDA approved medications. How much do I need to put back in yours and Hogan's pocket? And can I, in turn petition Exxon, Haliburton, BofA, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul for the money they took out of mine?

I agree its a moral dilemma and I'm all for welfare reform. But I'm not so sure Jesus was a libertarian.

kalm, you raise some good points, but I have to call you on your statement about putting money "back" in people's pockets.

That money belonged to us, and was taxed by the government. And while I understand the need to fund our federal government, I pay much more to the government every year than I spend on my own children, and that in my mind is deeply troubling. Is my duty to the government really greater than my duty to my children?

Please don't call me rich. I am not rich. I work hard and make a very good salary for sure. But what's keeping me from becoming rich is that, when all taxes are taken into account, I pay more than 50% of what I earn in some form of tax.

Point well taken. And in referencing one of your later posts, you clearly don't make enough money.

[BDKJMU]

Never mind