Obama halloween. Healthy version

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Sam

Many years ago in a newspaper column by someone named Williams it was made clear that
--the government has no money of its own
and
--the only way the government can give money to someone is to take it from someone else

Agreed Sam, but you don't hear people complaining when the government takes your money to build a bridge. As long as it's something that might benefit them they seem to have no problem with it. No one complains the government takes our money to make sure our food is safe to eat. But when it comes to giving some to the poor we get all bent out of shape.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

In fact, if you redefine socialism in terms of giving, socialism actually becomes the act of a society giving to its own underpriveleged people.

And exactly where and how do they get stamps or anything to give away?

We have the right to life liberty and PURSUIT of happiness.

What keeps them from pursuit?
How can the government give when the people they take from run out?

Do you really not know the take part is mandatory?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Agreed Sam, but you don't hear people complaining when the government takes your money to build a bridge. As long as it's something that might benefit them they seem to have no problem with it. No one complains the government takes our money to make sure our food is safe to eat. But when it comes to giving some to the poor we get all bent out of shape.

I drive on the bridge and my federal fuel taxes are for that. I get a deduction for fuel taxes on farm equipment. I am clear as could be. I realize that is handier than toll bridges.

[Sam]

I don't know how accurate this is but I read or heard somewhere that if each church would adopt one homeless family, every family would have a home.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sam

I don't know how accurate this is but I read or heard somewhere that if each church would adopt one homeless family, every family would have a home.

I taught a home bible study. One week they were gone. Evicted. Their wide screen rental and 2 full feature cellphones cost more than their rent.
The Lord will provide. NT saints didn't get gadgets provided.

The efforts by church people for lodging after katrina shows the resources are there.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

I drive on the bridge and my federal fuel taxes are for that. I get a deduction for fuel taxes on farm equipment. I am clear as could be. I realize that is handier than toll bridges.

Exactly my point coadie, as long as the tax gives you some benefit its okay, but if it's giving someone else benefit then it no good. Again, if Christianity in America gave more to the poor then I can't imagine the government ever needing to have taxes to help the poor ever again. On the bright side at least with those taxes you can be happy that it isn't just christians money that is helping them out. The atheist has his share taken too

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Exactly my point coadie, as long as the tax gives you some benefit its okay, but if it's giving someone else benefit then it no good. Again, if Christianity in America gave more to the poor then I can't imagine the government ever needing to have taxes to help the poor ever again. On the bright side at least with those taxes you can be happy that it isn't just christians money that is helping them out. The atheist has his share taken too

I think you are confused.

Federal benefit costs are projected to rise to $36 billion in the 2009 fiscal year from $34 billion this year.
Budget was 3.4 trillion.
1 penny of a dollar?
They take 100 times what the benefits are to the poor.It is more accurate to say the food stamp recipient recieves money which was borrowed and he will have to pay back or someone will. That isn't charity.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

I think you are confused.

Federal benefit costs are projected to rise to $36 billion in the 2009 fiscal year from $34 billion this year.
Budget was 3.4 trillion.
1 penny of a dollar?
They take 100 times what the benefits are to the poor.It is more accurate to say the food stamp recipient recieves money which was borrowed and he will have to pay back or someone will. That isn't charity.

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree along those lines that our economy should be established first and should be the primary goal because without it all those helpful programs will have to be cut. But the issue is not that these programs or socialism is bad, but that our economy is so screwed up that we can't support these programs. In fact I would much rather see the socialism done away with because I think it causes a laziness in many people on the bottom. But I don't think it should be done away with when christianity is either unwilling or unable to support the people that it does.

[Aquila]

God's Law demanded Israel to care for the poor, widows, orphans, and needy as a nation.

The civil Laws delivered by Moses from God required that landowners leave the edges and corners of their fields to the poor. It also granted the poor the "right" to glean from the edges and corners of landowner's fields. The Law of Moses also demanded that during the harvest any dropped grain was to be left for the gleaners. Lastly the Law of Moses required a poor tithe to be gathered centrally every three years to equip the priesthood with caring for the poor, widows, orphans, and needy.

Most don't realize this but the Law of Moses as inspired by God imposed an agrarian social welfare system for Israel's most needy people. This expresses God's desire and intent for all nations.

Your wealth isn't yours. The nation's wealth isn't the nation's. It all belongs to God. God demands social compassion from an entire society. Here conservatives deny the national calling of God on a righteous nation in the name of their own greed.

I would like to point out that Jesus and the disciples gleaned corn one day. It wasn't considered theft for God's Law required this right of the poor. If social welfare and compassion is theft Jesus was a thief.

Now, I do agree that our economy is so messed up that these programs will be hard to fund. It troubles me. But there isn't anything morally wrong with programs to assist the needy.

It should be noted that the Prophets rebuked the nation for neglecting these laws and the judgments of God fell upon them for neglecting the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the needy.

Tell me... should the church start requiring a poor tithe to care for those in need if we do away with social welfare programs?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

God's Law demanded Israel to care for the poor, widows, orphans, and needy as a nation.

The civil Laws delivered by Moses from God required that landowners leave the edges and corners of their fields to the poor. It also granted the poor the "right" to glean from the edges and corners of landowner's fields. The Law of Moses also demanded that during the harvest any dropped grain was to be left for the gleaners. Lastly the Law of Moses required a poor tithe to be gathered centrally every three years to equip the priesthood with caring for the poor, widows, orphans, and needy.

Most don't realize this but the Law of Moses as inspired by God imposed an agrarian social welfare system for Israel's most needy people. This expresses God's desire and intent for all nations.

Your wealth isn't yours. The nation's wealth isn't the nation's. It all belongs to God. God demands social compassion from an entire society. Here conservatives deny the national calling of God on a righteous nation in the name of their own greed.

I would like to point out that Jesus and the disciples gleaned corn one day. It wasn't considered theft for God's Law required this right of the poor. If social welfare and compassion is theft Jesus was a thief.

Now, I do agree that our economy is so messed up that these programs will be hard to fund. It troubles me. But there isn't anything morally wrong with programs to assist the needy.

It should be noted that the Prophets rebuked the nation for neglecting these laws and the judgments of God fell upon them for neglecting the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the needy.

Tell me... should the church start requiring a poor tithe to care for those in need if we do away with social welfare programs?

It's the conservatives that go to church.

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Looks like Obama is destroying jobs.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.


Liberals are more self centered

Trick or treat.