Too much politics?

[Scott J]

Then the government has no business giving marriage certificates to those who live that way. But they want it to be the government's business.

Ideally, the gov't shouldn't interfere in marriage or personal contracts no matter who is involved.

I suspect that if this were the case and employers, individuals, and associations were allowed to discriminate according to the dictates of their own conscience... gay marriage would be a non-issue.

 

[Filmproducer]

Because it is never right to steal... even if you really, really need it.

Stealing is stealing whether you do it yourself, hire someone to do it, or vote for someone to do it for you.

When rich people buy elections and politicians then get sweetheart deals at the expense of the taxpayers, I expect that you and I would agree that this is stealing. The morality standard does not change simply because someone is poor rather than rich. It is wrong to use gov't to pick you neighbor's pocket.

Another is the parable of the talents, remember? To the poorest servant who squandered his blessing and opportunity was condemnation. Even that which he had Christ said should be taken away.

The NT tells us that if a man won't work he shouldn't eat.

One who will not care for his own family is worse than an infidel- SSI and other programs directly discourage families from caring for their own. It provides an excuse.

Christians and the church are commanded to care for the poor. Nowhere are we commanded to force "the rich" to care for the poor.

Our founders envisioned a society where these types of values would be part and parcel to self-governance. If we as a society won't do them then we should stop pretending that our Constitution matters and rewrite ourselves as some sort of socialist state. We just need to stop being disingenuous if that is what the people have been deceived into wanting..

Again it is a matter of INTERPRETATION. You interpret TAXES as stealing, and that is your prerogative. Remember all of these programs are funded through tax dollars, (state and local). Keep in mind, though, the Bible says to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s". It is very clear on that matter. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to participate in politics in order to guarantee your government does not unfairly tax you, according to your beliefs. I happen to believe that welfare programs are a necessary "evil". The government is not charged with following the Bible, and even if it was the Bible does not prohibit taxing citizens.

Fact of the matter is society has drastically CHANGED since the time of our founding fathers. There are too many people needing help. Churches are not able to help everyone, nor do I believe some of them would if they could. The same can be said for individual Christians. Let's be realistic, how many people are WILLING to give up a creature comfort in order to substantially help the poor. Who is willing to give up cable TV, a second car, or even buy a smaller house? I highly commend the ones who do, but we all know there are not enough Christians willing to do this.

Edited to add- just because a person is needy does not make them lazy or unwilling to work. There is a problem in our society when this cannot be seen. There are TOO MANY people working their butts off and still not being able to get by without some assistance. Remember these "rich people" you are advocating for got their wealth off the backs of the poor. It's too bad that some cannot adjust their profit margins enough to help their workers earn a decent living. (Several corporations are coming to mind here)

 

[Filmproducer]

Nonetheless the notion that it can't be gotten around is downright laughable. I have a sister-in-law who has been scamming the system for years. The only thing wrong with her is that she's lazy and likes to stay high.

I am going to say the same thing to you that I said to Hope of Glory a few months ago. I seriously doubt your SIL is "scamming" the system. There has to be a reason she is able to stay on welfare. The state only receives a limited amount of federal money under PWORA. After five years the state must fund your SIL's welfare if she doesn't fall under the stringent exceptions. They are not going to continue paying for her out of the goodness of their hearts. :laugh: Does she have a documented disability? (Even if you do not consider it a disability)

I find it laughable that people are under the impression that welfare checks can support a family without any other sources of income. Welfare checks are supplemental, and they do not amount to all that much. The real problem with the system is that it does not allow any upward movement. It is designed, purposefully of not, to keep people poor.

 

[Scott J]

I am going to say the same thing to you that I said to Hope of Glory a few months ago. I seriously doubt your SIL is "scamming" the system.

Then you are calling me a liar? I've known her for 20 years. I know what she does.

There has to be a reason she is able to stay on welfare.

There are several. First, she isn't honest. Second, she knew how to convince someone she was bipolar without telling them that she was a near constant drug abuser. Third, those at the office she goes to know that their job security isn't in getting people off the system but rather finding "more ways for the system to serve them".

I know her. You don't. As I told someone else her, I grew up in a place where gov't dependents literally lived next door to us. They were "unable to work" yet they worked 10-12 hours a day cutting fire wood and getting paid under the table. The social services folks could have caught them. They definitely knew they were doing it... yet they had no incentive to do so.

Another family that was generationally welfare dependents ran a pulp wood cutting business for cash while drawing from various gov't programs. They hid their truck and equipment around a bend just in case the case worker stopped by.

Does she have a documented disability? (Even if you do not consider it a disability)

She's bipolar... except when it doesn't suit her to be. The problem with that diagnosis is that her mood swings et al are linked to drug abuse.

The real problem with the system is that it does not allow any upward movement. It is designed, purposefully of not, to keep people poor.

With this I definitely agree and would point to as a major advantage of privately funded/run programs especially faith based ones over gov't programs. The bureaucrat's job security is directly linked to keeping people on the program and they all know it.

 

[Scott J]

Again it is a matter of INTERPRETATION. You interpret TAXES as stealing, and that is your prerogative.

No. It really isn't a matter of interpretation and you haven't present one iota of a justification for claiming it is other than it being an inconvenient truth to you.

Remember all of these programs are funded through tax dollars, (state and local). Keep in mind, though, the Bible says to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s".

Which is probably very close to why a battle cry of the Revolution was "No King but Jesus!" The founders believed in the sovereignty of the individual before his Creator.

Nonetheless, I pay taxes because God appoints men to govern. Unjust leaders/systems are the right reward for people who favor them.

It is very clear on that matter. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to participate in politics in order to guarantee your government does not unfairly tax you, according to your beliefs.

No. Non sequitur. It states what stealing is. Caesar wasn't beholden to those he taxed. Our politicians supposedly are.

BTW, my concern is less for myself than others. My tax burden is comparatively light.

I happen to believe that welfare programs are a necessary "evil". The government is not charged with following the Bible, and even if it was the Bible does not prohibit taxing citizens.

We are charged with following the Bible and applying its principles to what we do... including how we vote and involve ourselves as allowed in the political system.

Fact of the matter is society has drastically CHANGED since the time of our founding fathers. There are too many people needing help.

That is ridiculously false. You think there are more people in need now than there were then? Provide even one iota of proof. As a rule, their lives were more difficult. They lived much closer to the line where failure means you don't survive than anyone in our society.

Churches are not able to help everyone, nor do I believe some of them would if they could.

The gov't has directly involved itself in disincentive for churches, individuals, and families. It may have to reverse itself using the tax code. For instance, tax credits for sponsoring people off of welfare. Vouchers. Incentives to cohabitate with elderly parents.

The same can be said for individual Christians. Let's be realistic, how many people are WILLING to give up a creature comfort in order to substantially help the poor.

So the answer for immorality is to do something else immoral?

Answer this hypothetical: You lose your job and home. You haven't eaten for days. You are on the street and a person weaker than you but fat comes walking down the street sporting expensive clothing and jewelry and munching on a bag of burgers. She sees you but doesn't offer to help. You ask for help and she says no. Are you now justified biblically to forcibly take what is hers away from her? Her guilt is obviously her own... but would God OK your mugging her?

Who is willing to give up cable TV, a second car, or even buy a smaller house?

We are already giving it up without knowing it.

Just as we've grown accustomed to having someone else take care of the poor and elderly for us, if the process is reversed and we are able to directly give to them and claim a slowly decreasing tax credit corresponding to a decrease in our tax rate then the new paradigm would be that we help people in need or else they don't get help. If we have grown so cold as a society that we won't do it... then gov't involvement is delaying the inevitable at best.

I highly commend the ones who do, but we all know there are not enough Christians willing to do this.

Necessity is the mother of invention... and in this case means to be charitable.

BTW, just think about the gross inefficiency of probably the best managed federal transfer program- ssi. There are no less than six payees for each beneficiary, right? If they make an avg of $30K then 15% of the resulting $180K is $27K per year. The absolute maximum benefit is around $22K per year. The norm is something like half that.

Easily 50% of collections is absorbed by the system. Just as easily a person could be allowed to direct their witholdings to a qualified recipient. Even if you only allowed 6 of the 8 to do so the recipients would get more, people would begin to be weaned of the system, and the system would become more solvent having cut bureaucratic waste.

Edited to add- just because a person is needy does not make them lazy or unwilling to work.

Never said they were.

There is a problem in our society when this cannot be seen. There are TOO MANY people working their butts off and still not being able to get by without some assistance.

I respect folks that work a plan to get ahead. Even more I respect people like my parents who never really "made it" themselves but ensured that my brother and I got a good education and a better opportunity to get ahead. They instilled the values of responsibility and work in us. They taught us it was not OK to live off someone else when we were capable of providing for ourselves... things that run directly contrary to the worldview of many liberals say we "must" help.

Remember these "rich people" you are advocating for got their wealth off the backs of the poor.

No they didn't. That is an absolutely ridiculous and false statement. The poor benefit from the wages and products to the degree that their own contributions merit... and a good deal more usually.

It's too bad that some cannot adjust their profit margins enough to help their workers earn a decent living. (Several corporations are coming to mind here)

Do you actually have their books? What do you really know about what it takes to even have a profit margin in a competitive industry?

Do you really want to make it easier for them to "help" their employees and pay them more?

Then you should be an advocate for tax cuts for the "wealthy". Investors don't eat that extra money. Their spending might increase slightly but most of it goes back into investments... that expand businesses... that create jobs... that creates a labor shortage... that pressures wages upward across the board.

Eliminate all taxes except a single, very efficient sales tax... or even the "fair tax" some have advocated that would implement a sales tax then send every household a check for living basics.

Decrease or better streamline regulations so they can compete better with foreign companies that pay a fraction of what American companies pay. China for instance pays about the equivalent of $4 per day... and they respect no environmental or employee safety laws. They don't have obstacles to capital investment the way we do.

There are a bunch of solutions that would do far more to "help the poor" that reduce gov't dependence... and they are far more desirable than those that do the opposite for both fiscal and philosophical reasons.

 

[Filmproducer]

Like I said Scott J you are set firmly in your ways and justifying anything is a waste of my time and yours. Whether you like it or not the Bible does not prohibit governments from taxing their citizens. TAXES ARE WHAT FUND THESE PROGRAMS and the BIBLE says SPECIFICALLY to PAY YOUR TAXES. Nowhere does it say you have the right to challenge the government. YOU may feel that taxes are not justifiable under our constitution, I disagree. Again it is matter of interpretation. Do you really believe that taxes can be done away with? GIVE ME A BREAK! Talk about ridiculous. In this day and age it isn’t going to happen, so quit yearning for utopia here on earth. Wake up and get a dose of reality.

As far as your SIL. Like I said she is not scamming the system. She has qualified for a medical exemption, whether you agree with that assessment or not. You are not her doctor, and it is very clear that you do not think highly of her. Where is your Christian charity for your own family? Oh, I forgot, you lived next to people who received welfare. Give me a break that does NOT make you an expert. Have you ever received TANF? Did they show you how much the welfare check amounted to? You were privy to all their financial concerns? For that matter, you are not the only one who lives near, or with, people receiving assistance. I find it ridiculous that you claim that these people are stealing from other Americans. Get over it, it is TAXES, not these people you have a problem with. Especially considering you classify them as fat, lazy, and eating bags of cheeseburgers while other "decent" Americans are working for them to survive.Proof positive that you do not deal with the majority of welfare recipients on a daily basis. The fact of the matter is most people who are on welfare do not want to be. Besides the average length of benefits per family is running about 16 months, (if I remember correctly).Talk about PRECONCEIVED PREDJUDICES. The fact of the matter is that TANF benefits can only be received for five years out of an ENTIRE lifetime. Ever hear of the Welfare to Work programs? After five years the states are forced to pay the benefits WITHOUT further federal assistance. I GUARENTEE they are not just giving that money away without good reason. If you are a recipient of TANF you have to be recertified on a frequent basis, for most states that is every three months. During recertification your employment status is checked. Your employer is required to fill out some tedious forms to verify income and such. If you are not working you have to show you are in school. Again the school has some very tedious forms to fill out. Not to mention the fact that if you show a pattern of having and losing jobs your benefits will be severely restricted. Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but I am also realistic about it. Eliminating welfare is not the answer.

As for everything else, frankly I don't have the time to respond. It's not like we will ever agree anyway.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Whether you like it or not the Bible does not prohibit governments from taxing their citizens. TAXES ARE WHAT FUND THESE PROGRAMS and the BIBLE says SPECIFICALLY to PAY YOUR TAXES. Nowhere does it say you have the right to challenge the government. YOU may feel that taxes are not justifiable under our constitution, I disagree. Again it is matter of interpretation. Do you really believe that taxes can be done away with? GIVE ME A BREAK!

I don't mean to interrupt this convo but since it would appear that you are into film, you might find this recently released documentary by Aaron Russoto be of interest.

 

[Filmproducer]

I don't mean to interrupt this convo but since it would appear that you are into film, you might find this recently released documentary by Aaron Russoto be of interest.

Interesting. Thanks for the link. BTW, the Constitution does not authorize an income tax. However, under Article I Sec.8 it states that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." and "to make all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying into execution the forgoing powers...". (emphasis mine, of course) Hence my statement that I disagree that taxes are not justifiable under our Constitution.

 

[Scott J]

Like I said Scott J you are set firmly in your ways and justifying anything is a waste of my time and yours.

Not if you actually justify it. You are to be commended for at least taking a shot at it.

Whether you like it or not the Bible does not prohibit governments from taxing their citizens. TAXES ARE WHAT FUND THESE PROGRAMS and the BIBLE says SPECIFICALLY to PAY YOUR TAXES.

I never said any different, did I?

Nowhere does it say you have the right to challenge the government.

Actually it does but I am not claiming that right.

OTOH, you are apparently implying that I have no justification for asserting that truth and justice should be adopted by our representative constitutional democratic republic... when all I am really espousing are the philosophical beliefs of those who founded our nation. A set of Laws for which a mechanism for changing was prescribed. To date, that mechanism has not been used but rather circumvented by those who would swindle people of their rights, freedoms, and property.

YOU may feel that taxes are not justifiable under our constitution, I disagree. Again it is matter of interpretation. Do you really believe that taxes can be done away with?

I really, honestly have to wonder if you've been reading what I've written after this. At no point have I said the gov't doesn't have the right to tax. I specifically mentioned an alternative that I believe would be more just and efficient. What I object to is OUR government supposedly subordinate to OUR constitution violating the rights of one group to transfer wealth to another group that did not earn it.

Private funding would be more than sufficient to help those who want a help up. It would not be sufficient for those against whom I've argued- those who are looking for a hand out.

In this day and age it isn’t going to happen, so quit yearning for utopia here on earth. Wake up and get a dose of reality.

Congratulations for recognizing the merit of the ideals. As with any human endeavor we should shoot for the ideal and deal with the reality.

These ideals would and did provide for a society of peace, security, goodness, and prosperity. I doubt they will ever be dominant in the US again. Someone else in the politics forum posted the history cycle of great republics. We as a society are certainly in the apathy stage. A collapse may be closer than any of us would like to believe.

Perhaps what arises afterward will return to a form of the founder's idealism.

As far as your SIL. Like I said she is not scamming the system. She has qualified for a medical exemption, whether you agree with that assessment or not.

And as I said, you don't know her. I do. She has been burning herself out on cocktails of prescription and illicit drugs for years. She has a decadent value system that includes a belief that she is entitled to being supported by someone else.

She is no more "bipolar" than her other three siblings who are productive members of society. She is fully capable of working if she'd dry out.

You are not her doctor,

Neither are you and you don't even know her and still want to dictate to me what I do and don't know about her after 20 years.

and it is very clear that you do not think highly of her.

No. I don't respect her. She is now and has always been promiscuous.

She has cheated family and friends out of literally thousands of dollars. Once while my in-laws were away from home, she found one of those unsolicited credit cards, impersonated my MIL, activated the card, and went on vacation to a spa where she ran up a $5000 bill... when they confronted her she couldn't understand why they weren't proud of her! She's in her late 30's so we're not talking about some wild kid.

Where is your Christian charity for your own family?

My MIL is more than taking care of it out of my wife's inheritance. The SIL wouldn't give her air if she were in a jug... and my saintly MIL just keeps giving and hoping she'll straighten up.

Oh, I forgot, you lived next to people who received welfare. Give me a break that does NOT make you an expert.

Give me a break. Did you grow up in a place where there were as many poor people as the county with the highest unemployment in NC and next door to a repressed Indian community?

Have you ever received TANF?

My parents did what they had to do to provide for us. My dad worked a full time job plus and then came home in the summer to garden a large portion of the food we ate over the winter. We never had AC or anything other than wood heat... IOW's, the neighbors on subsistence and earning money under the table were living better than we did with both parents working their fingers to the bones.

SO DON'T GIVE ME YOUR POMPOUS ATTITUDE ABOUT WHAT I DO AND DON'T KNOW ABOUT.

Did they show you how much the welfare check amounted to? You were privy to all their financial concerns? For that matter, you are not the only one who lives near, or with, people receiving assistance.

No. Just very experienced having seen it growing up and then all over the country.

I find it ridiculous that you claim that these people are stealing from other Americans.

Please tell us what you call it when you get someone else to take money from someone against their will for you.

That is by definition stealing. The founders even seemed to have recognized the danger when they wrote a prohibition of income tax into the constitution that was only undone about 90 years ago.

Get over it, it is TAXES, not these people you have a problem with. Especially considering you classify them as fat, lazy, and eating bags of cheeseburgers while other "decent" Americans are working for them to survive.

You whiffed on that completely didn't you? That admittedly poor example was a hypothetical to see if you agree that taking from others is wrong no matter the circumstances or rationalizations.

Proof positive that you do not deal with the majority of welfare recipients on a daily basis.

No one does... do they?

The fact of the matter is most people who are on welfare do not want to be.

True. They just don't always want to be off it bad enough to make the kinds of sacrifices other people like my parents make. Further, they don't see it as their sacred duty to secure something better for their posterity... which was a major concern for the founders.

Besides the average length of benefits per family is running about 16 months, (if I remember correctly).Talk about PRECONCEIVED PREDJUDICES.

Two things: One, that sounds about right from what I've read. My cousin was on aid for a few months to support herself and her daughter while she finished school. She's been self supporting for about 20 years since. Most people don't want to stay a dependent and don't. Nonetheless, many do otherwise... and I have known several of them.

Two, private charities, churches, and families effectively fulfilled this role before the gov't took it over. There is no proof that any more people "fell through the cracks" up until the 1920's as have since the 1960's.

Ever hear of the Welfare to Work programs?

Yes. And nice try at bait and switch. There are numerous ways around these rules. Social Sec is abused.

The brother of my cousin contracted HIV by homosexual sex. He drew SS and various other gov't benefits from his naval service.

Whether you want to believe it or not, my SIL is able bodied and minded when not stoned. She is actually very smart and has significant college classes in psychology... talk about career training. She could work. Even if she couldn't work at full capacity, she could do a great deal more than lay on her couch and pop pills.

Your employer is required to fill out some tedious forms to verify income and such. If you are not working you have to show you are in school. Again the school has some very tedious forms to fill out. Not to mention the fact that if you show a pattern of having and losing jobs your benefits will be severely restricted.

Before the gov't got involved... people just helped each other out. I guess simplicity and efficiency aren't satisfactory if the Feds can't spend 50%+ on administration, huh?

It's not like we will ever agree anyway.

That's OK though. You've done a decent job... better than anyone else... of explaining why you think these things are valid.

After striding through it all though, I still go back to the fundamental question of where the Bible suggests that Christians should support gov't programs that force others to pay for things we are commanded to do.

 

[Scott J]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. BTW, the Constitution does not authorize an income tax. However, under Article I Sec.8 it states that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." and "to make all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying into execution the forgoing powers...". (emphasis mine, of course) Hence my statement that I disagree that taxes are not justifiable under our Constitution.

Actually income taxes were consistently ruled unconstitutional until the 16th Amendment of 1913 I believe.

Even then, there has been controversy about whether it was properly ratified and also about the legal definition of "income" at the time of its passage. Some argue that income was viewed similar to what we call "profit" or "capital gain" and that wages qualify as a barter of time for money... not an income.

 

[Filmproducer]

Actually income taxes were consistently ruled unconstitutional until the 16th Amendment of 1913 I believe.

Even then, there has been controversy about whether it was properly ratified and also about the legal definition of "income" at the time of its passage. Some argue that income was viewed similar to what we call "profit" or "capital gain" and that wages qualify as a barter of time for money... not an income.

No they were not. Congress imposed the first income taxes in 1862 and 1864 after the Civil War. The first challenge came with Springer v. United States (1881). Springer claimed that income taxes were direct taxes and needed to be apportioned on the basis of population. The SCOTUS unanimously rejected this position holding that only capitation taxes and taxes on land were direct taxes. Springer set the precedent that the Federal government had the power to tax incomes.

In 1872 Congress had reduced enough of its debt and repealed the income tax. By 1894 it was reinstated under the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act. By 1895 it was challenged again in Pollock v. Farmer' Loan & Trust Co., the court, in a 5-4 decision I might add, ignored precedent and claimed the tax was unconstitutional. At the time it was a very unpopular decision with the middle and working class. By 1909 Congress proposed the 16th amendment in an overwhelming 77-0 vote in the Senate and a 318-14 vote in the House. By February 1913 the amendment had the required number approvals.

So, in short, federal income taxes were not consistently ruled unconstitutional. In fact, constitutional history shows otherwise. Considering the first income tax was in 1862 and the first challenge in 1881 was unanimously rejected by the SCOTUS.

 

[Filmproducer]

Actually it does but I am not claiming that right.

Hmmm… must have missed it. Do you mind pointing the chapter and verse out?

Give me a break. Did you grow up in a place where there were as many poor people as the county with the highest unemployment in NC and next door to a repressed Indian community?

Please, like you were the only person in this world to grow up around poor people. Give me a break.

That is by definition stealing. The founders even seemed to have recognized the danger when they wrote a prohibition of income tax into the constitution that was only undone about 90 years ago.

Once again, prove it. There is NOTHING in the original constitution prohibiting an income tax. Why don’t you read Article I Sec. 8 again. The only thing the Constitution stipulated was the standard for assessing federal taxes, i.e., excise taxes applied uniformly throughout the US and direct taxes apportioned according to population.

You whiffed on that completely didn't you? That admittedly poor example was a hypothetical to see if you agree that taking from others is wrong no matter the circumstances or rationalizations.

You missed your mark then, because I in no way agreed with your assessment. Ever heard of sarcasm? And you called me pompous.

True. They just don't always want to be off it bad enough to make the kinds of sacrifices other people like my parents make. Further, they don't see it as their sacred duty to secure something better for their posterity... which was a major concern for the founders.

Again you are making generalizations here that you cannot prove. Please tell me how you know that these people don’t make sacrifices? I certainly know many who do. For that matter how do you know they are not trying to secure something better for their posterity, as you so aptly put it? You don’t.

After striding through it all though, I still go back to the fundamental question of where the Bible suggests that Christians should support gov't programs that force others to pay for things we are commanded to do.

And I ask, is a Christian exempt just because the government feels the need to step in? No. The bible commands us to do these things, and we still can regardless of what the government does. The bible also commands us to pay our taxes. If the government wants to use that money to do things that Christians should be doing already so be it. The bible does not command governments to step aside to let Christians perform their moral duty. The bible is silent on the issue.

 

[Filmproducer]

Since I responded to [Scott J] with this the silence has been deafening.

Sound familiar? The Bible is silent on this issue, and I guess so are you. I'm still waiting for the chapter and verse that says it is okay to challenge the government.