He is all in favor of forcing other people to give to the poor.
|
He is all in favor of forcing other people to give to the poor.
No, wrong attitude, he is in favour of helping out those less fortunate, afterall isn't the government there for the common good?
Has nothing to do with an "attitude". I'm talking about what the guy is advocating for. He is all for getting the government to take even more money from others to support his charitable inclinations. You will never see him issue a call to raise HIS taxes.
Saying the government is here for the "common good" is a far cry from saying we should take money from some people to give to others, and especially when those others are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. The "common good" in America was historically defined as projects such as roads and schools which benefit everyone. That is not the same at all as taking money from one person to give to another. And even worse, to do what we are doing now which is to borrow money to give to another.
If he is really in favor of helping out the less fortunate, then I feel certain he has significant resources of his own to use to do so. It's what my wife and I do. I imagine it's what you do, it is certainly what many others do, and it's what he could do if he chose to. Charity is not when A and B force C to take care of D.
nope . The Constitution was established to protect individual rights primarily .Government has to balance those rights and the common good . But the individual rights are precedent
And it's hard to imagine a more fundamental individual right than the right to one's own property.
If I have extra wealth, I, through the government and my church and on my own, help those less fortunate. If circumstances put me in the less-fortunate category, I, in turn, will be helped by my governmrnt, my church, and others more fortunate.
That's fine if that's what you choose, but when you attempt by force of law to compel others to do likewise, then you are wrong.Quote:
If I have extra wealth, I, through the government and my church and on my own, help those less fortunate. If circumstances put me in the less-fortunate category, I, in turn, will be helped by my governmrnt, my church, and others more fortunate.
To be clear, I'm all for helping others. It's one reason why I preach the Gospel, for when a person accepts Christ, then that person will be led to love his neighbor as himself. But I will not be a part of forcing others to do. The former is charity. The latter is tyranny.
We, the people, in this country together make laws. The majority rules. Sometimes I am not happy with a law, but it's a law so I roll with it and do my best to obey and cooperate in order to obey that law. I know that someday I and/or my loved ones/my friends/my neighbors may very likely benefit because of that law.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The Constitution rules. But even if you are right, are you saying that we should just roll over and accept whatever the majority mandates? The majority elected Trump. Did you just "roll with it" on that occasion? Hint: We both know the answer to that one.Quote:
The majority rules.
Why are you spelling "government" as "governmrnt"? Freudian slip? There is no "me" in your governmnt. 8D
Did you see me leading a revolution to have him assassinated? No. Did I go along with decisions he and the Republican Party made? Yes. P.S. Government consists of the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'n tping this without one finger on my candle while lying sideways in bed in a dark boardroom.Quote:
Why are you spelling "government" as "governmrnt"? Freudian slip?
Interesting how he employs the Bible when it's convenient.
Acts 5:3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan(C) has so filled your heart(D) that you have lied to the Holy Spirit(E) and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?(F) 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?
Notice that Peter asserts that Ananias' land belonged to him and it was at his disposal. It was not his handling of his money that was the problem; it was his lying about it.
If this refers to my post above, I posted it for you. Since you believe everything in the Bible, this shows Paul saying government is from God, the King (the government) helps the needy, and Jesus who would have known about Paul and the Psalm, blesses the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This is how the Bible treats taxation helping the poor. Your way puts roadblocks in the way of the word of God.
Why is it that liberal dems are so good in giving advice for OTHERS to take? At any rate, your argument falls rather flat. The injunction to obey the government is plainly limited. For instance, the Romans were against the Christian faith, made it illegal, and persecuted its followers, but Christians did not obey the government in that regard. But even at that, we're not talking about obeying government; we're talking about what government policy should be. And you have not posted a single scripture to the effect that government should take money from one citizen to give to another. Your assertion that, "This is how the Bible treats taxation helping the poor," is ridiculous. You did not post a single scripture that referred to the government using tax money to help the poor. Not one. Now there actually is some Bible support for that, but you seem not to know it. I will be happy to provide if you would like.Quote:
If this refers to my post above, I posted it for you. Since you believe everything in the Bible, this shows Paul saying government is from God, the King (the government) helps the needy, and Jesus who would have known about Paul and the Psalm, blesses the poor.
BTW, Jesus is likely not speaking of the materially poor. If He was, then one could argue that our goal should be to have MORE poor people, and not fewer. His reference was more likely to the spiritually poor, which is to say to those who realize their own personal poverty in matters concerning God, and thus their great need for Jesus.
Because they think you are dumb, recalcitrant, stuck in the past, and Trump's attitudes certainly typified that. You dislike the idea of taxation as a means of redistributing income, but how else is income to be redistributed when the poor have no power, even their power at the ballot box was stripped away. The rich rule your country, whether demonrat or RepublictantQuote:
Why is it that liberal dems are so good in giving advice for OTHERS to take?
The dufus is a capitalist in need of money to pay his lawyers so of course he needs a super pac. Who gives a flying fig what the Swedes do?
Well Tal you may be surprised to learn the Swedes do, they do surprisingly well for a small country. As to Trump, yesterday's man, he has more trouble than a swamp full of leftist alligators, but there are deluded individuals who cling to him
With their defense budget how could they not do well?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Watch their heads explode...especially the ones shoulder deep up his arse. I know I need a hobby, but it's fascinating watching a major party floundering over itself.Quote:
As to Trump, yesterday's man, he has more trouble than a swamp full of leftist alligators, but there are deluded individuals who cling to him
What you get if you don't have a viable opposition is bad governmentQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Repubs have been reduced to talking about old children's books and toys and saying NO to liberals. Dems invited them to the party but the dufus and his loony cabal won't allow it.
You know nothing about America. It is well established that Americans move up and down the rungs of the income ladder frequently in both directions. The poor have certainly not lost the ability to vote, and the rich do not rule the country. If they did, then they would not be paying more than 85% of income taxes and practically all of inheritance taxes.Quote:
You dislike the idea of taxation as a means of redistributing income, but how else is income to be redistributed when the poor have no power, even their power at the ballot box was stripped away. The rich rule your country, whether demonrat or Republictant
As to using taxation to "redistribute" income, that would be easy to solve. All of the liberal dems who claim to believe in that could start tomorrow. They could downsize their houses and give the money away. They could give away one car and make the remaining car do double duty. They could cash in a 401K and give the money away. They don't do that because they really don't believe in it. For that matter Clete, you could start giving away a significant portion of your retirement income. It might mean having to live more frugally, but you could do it. You don't because you see the folly in the whole thing. Unsurprisingly, it's always someone else's income that needs to be redistributed.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 AM. |