American Charity!

[tanzanos]

I do.

I'm rather glad that our "tent cities" are minimal compared to the number of similar situations in countries that don't have government programs to protect and support people in need. I'd rather not have families living in tunnels and under bridges and living on benches.

I'm not happy with the billions of thrown away dollars spent on our recent military efforts and as with any spending that I believe to be wasteful (like the member items our legislators get to hand out in return for votes) I will let my reps know when I don't support it, and have voted against folks who okay handing over money for things that support on individual interests rather than the larger good. I accept that not everything in the budget is something I'm going to agree to. Heck not everything in my budget is something I like spending money on either.

Charity is the least of my concerns when it comes to my taxes- at least in terms of how much, there's so little of the budget spent on TANF based programs it's barely worth the amount of effort put into oversight.. and it certainly gets a ridiculous about of oversight for such small amounts of money.

I agree with you. It is sad to see people who speak out against the government spending money helping the poor while at the same time saying NOTHING about their tax money going to wars!

My point here is the total hypocrisy inherent in such attitudes as adopted by certain religious groups.

 

[wanderingone]

My point here is the total hypocrisy inherent in such attitudes as adopted by certain religious groups.

I agree there's some hypocrisy involved, especially when so many faith based groups are applying for that government funding. I personally don't believe that most people who object to tax based charities actually object based on faith values.. they object based on the idea that some of their money is going to go to charities they don't agree with, they might not agree because of their specific beliefs, but there are plenty of non religious people who also don't like to be "forced" via taxes to contribute because of their own beliefs..

I can't go with the belief that I choose based on my interpretation of who is worthy for my leftovers.
I don't understand the mandate Christ gave us to love to mean you get to choose the "worthy" to give to. Christ certainly wasn't sacrificed for the "worthy"

Christians are told to give all- not to hand it over if you think you should, we're told if we're asked for something then give it up, and then give up whatever else we have. Entertaining angels was a frequent point in my childhood home when we asked "why".. and it was made clear that you don't help the stranger because they *might* be a messenger of christ, but because they ARE.

The government takes theirs and gives it out.. that's got nothing to do (in my opinion) with the charity I am compelled to give as a follower of Christ. I can't come close to having the level of faith that allows me to give what i believe we are told to give. I can't ... I'm afraid to leave the bank account empty and believe my needs will be met. Although there have been plenty of times I have given over the last when I wasn't sure I'd have enough to pay my way the next day... strange.. it was easier when the "last" of what I had was usually not all that much...

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Still no response to the questions, I see.

I guess that means she concedes.

 

[tanzanos]

I agree there's some hypocrisy involved, especially when so many faith based groups are applying for that government funding. I personally don't believe that most people who object to tax based charities actually object based on faith values.. they object based on the idea that some of their money is going to go to charities they don't agree with, they might not agree because of their specific beliefs, but there are plenty of non religious people who also don't like to be "forced" via taxes to contribute because of their own beliefs..

I can't go with the belief that I choose based on my interpretation of who is worthy for my leftovers.
I don't understand the mandate Christ gave us to love to mean you get to choose the "worthy" to give to. Christ certainly wasn't sacrificed for the "worthy"

Christians are told to give all- not to hand it over if you think you should, we're told if we're asked for something then give it up, and then give up whatever else we have. Entertaining angels was a frequent point in my childhood home when we asked "why".. and it was made clear that you don't help the stranger because they *might* be a messenger of christ, but because they ARE.

The government takes theirs and gives it out.. that's got nothing to do (in my opinion) with the charity I am compelled to give as a follower of Christ. I can't come close to having the level of faith that allows me to give what i believe we are told to give. I can't ... I'm afraid to leave the bank account empty and believe my needs will be met. Although there have been plenty of times I have given over the last when I wasn't sure I'd have enough to pay my way the next day... strange.. it was easier when the "last" of what I had was usually not all that much...

Once more you and others are avoiding a very important issue. None of you (religious right) condemn your taxpayers money being used by the Government to conduct wars and spend billions on weapons research.

So according to you; it is ok for your government to spend your money on wars and killing but not on helping the poor.

"Hypocrites and Pharisees"

 

[bsd13]

I do.

I'm rather glad that our "tent cities" are minimal compared to the number of similar situations in countries that don't have government programs to protect and support people in need. I'd rather not have families living in tunnels and under bridges and living on benches.

I'm not happy with the billions of thrown away dollars spent on our recent military efforts and as with any spending that I believe to be wasteful (like the member items our legislators get to hand out in return for votes) I will let my reps know when I don't support it, and have voted against folks who okay handing over money for things that support on individual interests rather than the larger good. I accept that not everything in the budget is something I'm going to agree to. Heck not everything in my budget is something I like spending money on either.

Charity is the least of my concerns when it comes to my taxes- at least in terms of how much, there's so little of the budget spent on TANF based programs it's barely worth the amount of effort put into oversight.. and it certainly gets a ridiculous about of oversight for such small amounts of money.

Here's my position. The money belongs to God. Not the government. I, as a Christian am entrusted with God's resources (including money) to have dominion over (that is to be responsible for). Part of my duty is to aid the poor and the sick. I'm perfectly capable of determining how my little bit of God's resources are best spent, not the government. Me.

 

[tanzanos]

Here's my position. The money belongs to God. Not the government. I, as a Christian am entrusted with God's resources (including money) to have dominion over (that is to be responsible for). Part of my duty is to aid the poor and the sick. I'm perfectly capable of determining how my little bit of God's resources are best spent, not the government. Me.

I don't see you complaining when the Government spends your money on Police, Schools, Highways, etc. Are you willing to do all these things privately?

Also you do not condemn the use of YOUR taxpayers money on Wars and Weapons. Unless you are in favour of Wars?

 

[bsd13]

I don't see you complaining when the Government spends your money on Police, Schools, Highways, etc. Are you willing to do all these things privately?

Also you do not condemn the use of YOUR taxpayers money on Wars and Weapons. Unless you are in favour of Wars?

You don't know me very well.

I do in fact advocate private police and schools. There are many communities that actually have private police. Interstate commerce (interstate highways) are part of the fed. government's constitutional obligation.

I'm in favor of self-defense. Not war for the sake of war, but again self-defense like interstate commerce is part of the governments constitutional liability. In other words it is their job.

Now that I've taken the time to answer your questions how about explaining what you think being taxed has to do with donations? The US Constitution provides for taxes and while I don't agree with how it is spent in all cases it is still legal.

On the other hand the Constitution makes no mention of fleecing me or my fellow countrymen to force us to give our money to other people. I am more than capable of distributing my own money in a fair and equitable manner, thank you very much.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

You don't know me very well.

I do in fact advocate private police and schools. There are many communities that actually have private police. Interstate commerce (interstate highways) are part of the fed. government's constitutional obligation.

I'm in favor of self-defense. Not war for the sake of war, but again self-defense like interstate commerce is part of the governments constitutional liability. In other words it is their job.

Now that I've taken the time to answer your questions how about explaining what you think being taxed has to do with donations? The US Constitution provides for taxes and while I don't agree with how it is spent in all cases it is still legal.

On the other hand the Constitution makes no mention of fleecing me or my fellow countrymen to force us to give our money to other people. I am more than capable of distributing my own money in a fair and equitable manner, thank you very much.

The point was brought up that Christians don't seem to have any qualms with "Faith Based Initiatives" which is tax money given to churches to do "charitable work" yet they have a big problem with tax money being spent on other government run social programs. There's a huge hypocritical hole in that. That point was the basis for where this discussion headed and the same one which no Christian hath dared touch as of yet.

 

[bsd13]

The point was brought up that Christians don't seem to have any qualms with "Faith Based Initiatives" which is tax money given to churches to do "charitable work" yet they have a big problem with tax money being spent on other government run social programs. There's a huge hypocritical hole in that. That point was the basis for where this discussion headed and the same one which no Christian hath dared touch as of yet.

The church is meant to be an entirely separate entity from the state. That law is meant to protect the CHURCH not to protect the state. So in short the government should NOT be distrusting tax money for charity, or anything else aside from the very limited powers granted by the Constitution. They should not be allowed to use any channel be it churches or welfare offices.

There now that your "issue" has been addressed and shown to be a complete non-issue let's get back to the question of if the government has a "right" to redistribute wealth in the form of charity.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

The church is meant to be an entirely separate entity from the state. That law is meant to protect the CHURCH not to protect the state. So in short the government should NOT be distrusting tax money for charity, or anything else aside from the very limited powers granted by the Constitution. They should not be allowed to use any channel be it churches or welfare offices.

There now that your "issue" has been addressed and shown to be a complete non-issue let's get back to the question of if the government has a "right" to redistribute wealth in the form of charity.

You're the first Christian I've heard to speak out against the FBIP, while the vast majority scream about how wrong government based social welfare programs are.

I am not taking a side on this issue in this debate. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of stating that on one hand, government redistribution of wealth is wrong, and on the other hand giving blessing to the Faith Based Initiative Program.

 

[wanderingone]

Once more you and others are avoiding a very important issue. None of you (religious right) condemn your taxpayers money being used by the Government to conduct wars and spend billions on weapons research.

So according to you; it is ok for your government to spend your money on wars and killing but not on helping the poor.

"Hypocrites and Pharisees"

????Are you sure you are responding to my post?

 

[wanderingone]

Here's my position. The money belongs to God. Not the government. I, as a Christian am entrusted with God's resources (including money) to have dominion over (that is to be responsible for). Part of my duty is to aid the poor and the sick. I'm perfectly capable of determining how my little bit of God's resources are best spent, not the government. Me.

So does that mean to you that you shouldn't pay taxes at all? Or that none of your taxes should go to charity?

 

[bsd13]

So does that mean to you that you shouldn't pay taxes at all? Or that none of your taxes should go to charity?

I believe in very, VERY limited government. I believe in paying taxes because it is the law of the land (Render unto Caesar) not necessarily because I agree with how it is used.

I do not believe in taxes going to charity because that is a redistribution of wealth and I don't believe forms of government that do that are necessary. If I want to redistribute my own wealth that's one thing but to say the government should do it is absurd.

 

[wanderingone]

I believe in very, VERY limited government. I believe in paying taxes because it is the law of the land (Render unto Caesar) not necessarily because I agree with how it is used.

I do not believe in taxes going to charity because that is a redistribution of wealth and I don't believe forms of government that do that are necessary. If I want to redistribute my own wealth that's one thing but to say the government should do it is absurd.

So no other taxes other than the small percentage that are used for charity are redistribution of wealth? Even though it means that services are available to all that might without taxes be only available to those who could afford to pay privately? Like schools and police?

 

[bsd13]

So no other taxes other than the small percentage that are used for charity are redistribution of wealth? Even though it means that services are available to all that might without taxes be only available to those who could afford to pay privately? Like schools and police?

No, but we are talking specifically about taxes used for charity. Lots of instances that taxes are used in a questionable manner. To your other point of contention, that some would not be able to afford services I disagree.

Many communities have private police forces and they aren't "rich". Beyond that there was a time when the sheriff and maybe one deputy was the only paid component of the police force. I realize we don't live in the wild west but the point is that it is possible.

Personally I don't know of anyone who will tell you that they are getting what they pay for when it comes to our public school system. In fact almost all the parents I know are either home schooling or have enrolled their kids in private school (no you don't need to be rich to send a kid to private school). The few who have their kids in public schools are trying to work out how to get them out.

 

[Braunwyn]

Personally I don't know of anyone who will tell you that they are getting what they pay for when it comes to our public school system. In fact almost all the parents I know are either home schooling or have enrolled their kids in private school (no you don't need to be rich to send a kid to private school). The few who have their kids in public schools are trying to work out how to get them out.

You're in Boston, right? I found some interesting info about our schools recently. While the US is trailing other industrialized nations in the maths and sciences, MA comes out 3rd (behind Japan and Taiwan IIRC). I had no idea but that is good news. I'm not sure of the breakdown between private and public schools though. Just a neat FYI.

 

[wanderingone]

No, but we are talking specifically about taxes used for charity. Lots of instances that taxes are used in a questionable manner. To your other point of contention, that some would not be able to afford services I disagree.

Many communities have private police forces and they aren't "rich". Beyond that there was a time when the sheriff and maybe one deputy was the only paid component of the police force. I realize we don't live in the wild west but the point is that it is possible.

Personally I don't know of anyone who will tell you that they are getting what they pay for when it comes to our public school system. In fact almost all the parents I know are either home schooling or have enrolled their kids in private school (no you don't need to be rich to send a kid to private school). The few who have their kids in public schools are trying to work out how to get them out.

Almost everyone I know has their kids in public school.

I don't say you have to be rich to access private school. However private and parochial school tuition is often out of reach for many people. I didn't say you have to be rich to have private services, however you have to pay for them, and I'm saying that you're still redistributing wealth when those things are provided by the government (be it local, state or federal) because there's always going to be people who don't earn enough to pay much in to the costs of their community.

I brought up things other than "charity" because you said that you didn't agree with charity given by the government because that is redistribution of wealth, but otherwise you agree with paying your taxes because you have to give to the government what is theirs. I'm not sure how giving someone food stamps is any different than providing subsidies for public transportation. It's all taking a bit of money from individuals and spreading it out.

 

[HollandScotts]

Once more you and others are avoiding a very important issue. None of you (religious right) condemn your taxpayers money being used by the Government to conduct wars and spend billions on weapons research.

Common defence of the nation is one of the governments resposibilities listed in the Constitution, unlike providing health care for all.

In the business of helping people, the government should only help those who can't get it elsewhere, and who can't help themselves, and it should only help them long enough till they get to the point where they can help themselves again.

It's not there to provide you with a free ride, because someone still has to pay for that ride.