The way I've always felt about it is simple....I have no issue with giving to charity or the poor, however I want to give to them, because I can and am willing. We should not be forced by government to do anything with our money.

Re: your last sentence: Then how should this great country finance national defense? Voluntary giving? A lottery? Car washes?

Re: your last sentence: Then how should this great country finance national defense? Voluntary giving? A lottery? Car washes?

 

I'm talking about funding social programs. I have no issue with my money going towards infrastructure and defense.

It is a simple fact of life that the more you do for people, the less they will have to do for themselves. If you help people out, there will be some that will take advantage of it. That is true whether the giving is through a government program or through private charity. If you can't live with the idea that some people will take advantage then you can't live with any charity. The flip side is that there are many people that need some help. I for one, believe that it is an obligation of ALL in a society to help where they can. Often, the scale of the need requires a government program. I am fond of saying that I don't have a dime that I didn't earn myself. That is true, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. I have also been the recipient of enormous generosity through the years. I was educated in schools that were to a very significant degree paid for by others, either through direct contributions or through the labor of priests and religious that worked for almost no pay. I had the great good fortune to grow up in a loving stable home where work was valued. I have used that education and those values to build a nice career, but I have also relied on a society paid for by those that came before us. I have labored in a stable society paid for with the lives of men and women who protected me and my family over the years.

 

The old cliche is about the person that was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Well, I may not have been born on third, but I was born into a stable family, good health, some brains and I was given the opportunity for a good education. At the very least I was born rounding second. So if we as a society give a little help to someone that was born at the plate with an 0-2 count, it doesn't bother me a bit.

 

I follow much of what you are saying, I just wish more of social spending was done at lower levels of government, ie on the state level if possible instead of the federal level and on the local level if possible instead of the state level. My belief in that is two fold. First, it is my assumption that the 26 people on Louisville Metro Council are more in touch with the education and social service needs of Louisville than someone in congress who is drafting an education bill or a social welfare bill who is probably from a different state and may have never stepped foot in Louisville before. I think localized action can be better tailored towards issues specific to Louisville federal wide action or possibly even state wide action. Now, if the program needed is simply too large or complex to be run by smaller cities and counties, then it should be moved up to the state level and so on but I think too often it immediately goes to a level higher than needed.

 

The second reason I like social/education programs run on the lowest levels possible is that the legislators at lower levels are more accessible to the people should the people feel a program is being run improperly. If there is an issue in Louisville, my Metro Councilman is walking distance from me and I have his home phone number and (within reason) he is fine with those of us in Metro Council District 26 contacting him about concerns and I bet for most people in Louisville that is the same way. On the federal side, if there was a program I felt was a waste of tax payer money, I would bet trying to reach Congressman John Yarmuth or Senators Mitch McConnell or Rand Paul would go into a large collection of messages from others received that same day and probably not get much attention from me.

 

So, I guess my view is if there is some social need, I wish more churches and charities (and members/donors to those churches/charities) would step up and try to meet the needs themselves. If the problem becomes too large/complex, I would hope the city/county would be the next to step up and address the problem, then to the state and finally to the fed. I believe this is a philosophy call subsidisty or something like that. I believe this concept was used in the US up till the Great Depression when the economy tanks so bad the fed had to step in. However, when things started looking up, the fed never stepped back so now the fed is the 800 lb gorilla of social programs instead of the government body that picks up the hard stuff the smaller levels of government cannot handle.

I'm talking about funding social programs. I have no issue with my money going towards infrastructure and defense.

 

Exactly the role of the government as a whole was meant for support of infrastructure and in charge of National defense. Also policing interstate commerce. Most other functions were meant for the local and state level. That is why a Federal system was a setup. Somewhere a long the line we allowed ourselves to be corrupted into believing government is an efficent means to help the poor which as we see over and over it just isn't.

 

I personally have no problem for short term help with things such job training, unemployment and some cases of food stamps. But none of these programs should be long term.

 

It's just a fact that you can't take a dollar from one man then pass it through different hands to reach another man and expect that dollar to be spent as efficent. The system is setup for corruption and special interest.

I follow much of what you are saying, I just wish more of social spending was done at lower levels of government, ie on the state level if possible instead of the federal level and on the local level if possible instead of the state level. My belief in that is two fold. First, it is my assumption that the 26 people on Louisville Metro Council are more in touch with the education and social service needs of Louisville than someone in congress who is drafting an education bill or a social welfare bill who is probably from a different state and may have never stepped foot in Louisville before. I think localized action can be better tailored towards issues specific to Louisville federal wide action or possibly even state wide action. Now, if the program needed is simply too large or complex to be run by smaller cities and counties, then it should be moved up to the state level and so on but I think too often it immediately goes to a level higher than needed.

 

The second reason I like social/education programs run on the lowest levels possible is that the legislators at lower levels are more accessible to the people should the people feel a program is being run improperly. If there is an issue in Louisville, my Metro Councilman is walking distance from me and I have his home phone number and (within reason) he is fine with those of us in Metro Council District 26 contacting him about concerns and I bet for most people in Louisville that is the same way. On the federal side, if there was a program I felt was a waste of tax payer money, I would bet trying to reach Congressman John Yarmuth or Senators Mitch McConnell or Rand Paul would go into a large collection of messages from others received that same day and probably not get much attention from me.

 

So, I guess my view is if there is some social need, I wish more churches and charities (and members/donors to those churches/charities) would step up and try to meet the needs themselves. If the problem becomes too large/complex, I would hope the city/county would be the next to step up and address the problem, then to the state and finally to the fed. I believe this is a philosophy call subsidisty or something like that. I believe this concept was used in the US up till the Great Depression when the economy tanks so bad the fed had to step in. However, when things started looking up, the fed never stepped back so now the fed is the 800 lb gorilla of social programs instead of the government body that picks up the hard stuff the smaller levels of government cannot handle.

Before the last election right-wing Catholics like Raymond Arroyo were big on the doctrine of subsidiarity. It's one of these concepts that sounds good on paper but doesn't mean much to Joe Worker who just got laid off. He just needs some help and doesn't care who or what provides the help. In many ways the federal government is the most efficient vehicle for providing a helping hand.

 

Also should remind everyone that we live in a commonwealth. Split the word in two. Common. Wealth.

Before the last election right-wing Catholics like Raymond Arroyo were big on the doctrine of subsidiarity. It's one of these concepts that sounds good on paper but doesn't mean much to Joe Worker who just got laid off. He just needs some help and doesn't care who or what provides the help. In many ways the federal government is the most efficient vehicle for providing a helping hand.

 

Also should remind everyone that we live in a commonwealth. Split the word in two. Common. Wealth.

 

So are you a socialist or communist?

So are you a socialist or communist?

A little socialism isn't necessarily bad, All Tell. The Founding Fathers talk about "promoting the general welfare." Key word is "general." Which means the goal of government is to improve the lives of all, not some. It also means one can't cherry-pick and say my tax dollars can go for tanks but not unemployment benefits.

Where are these people who don't want their tax dollars to go towards helping the poor? In 35 years of preparing tax returns I have yet to meet one. So I can only assume, based on Mr. Carter's quote and my own vast experience, that this country wants to be based on Christian values, and by a very large margin. Let's get started.

A little socialism isn't necessarily bad, All Tell. The Founding Fathers talk about "promoting the general welfare." Key word is "general." Which means the goal of government is to improve the lives of all, not some. It also means one can't cherry-pick and say my tax dollars can go for tanks but not unemployment benefits.

 

I disagree. Promoting the general welfare means providing services and infrastructure not entitlements.

Personally, this has a different meaning than some may be interpreting it. I take it as saying, "there's nothing wrong with being a Christian and living by Christian values, but it isn't the role of the government to impose these things on society, it should be up to the individual on their own".

 

That's just something that popped up to me when I was reading it.

 

I greatly agree with 4chs' point that he/she has no problem helping the poor, but problems with some of the "help" that some are currently being provided.

I disagree. Promoting the general welfare means providing services and infrastructure not entitlements.

That's an interesting twist. So Medicaid isn't "promoting the general welfare"? Of course it is. So are aspects of the ACA.

A little socialism isn't necessarily bad, All Tell. The Founding Fathers talk about "promoting the general welfare." Key word is "general." Which means the goal of government is to improve the lives of all, not some. It also means one can't cherry-pick and say my tax dollars can go for tanks but not unemployment benefits.

 

If you think the founding fathers believed in socialism you need to read a history book. I'm glad you finally admitted to being a socialist . Now I know your economics aren't based in reason.

If you think the founding fathers believed in socialism you need to read a history book. I'm glad you finally admitted to being a socialist . Now I know your economics aren't based in reason.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Try again.

Social Security and Medicare are paid into by all workers throughout their working career. Receiving these benefits is tantamount to getting back an investment that the government forces you to make. They are Entitlements because you pay into them and are entitled to receive the benefits back. Problem is that when there were a ton of workers in the workforce the fine Folks in DC took some of the money that had been paid into these programs and wasted it elsewhere. I have no issue with people getting back from which they have paid, I do have an issue with people getting perpetual benefits that have never paid for. No one that can not prove that they are an US Citizen should receive any of these benefits and should be shown the way home when they apply.

I've always been curious about the intersection of Christianity and economic policy. Undoubtedly, Christianity informs a lot of social-conservatives' views - gay marriage, abortion, Judeo-Christian values, prayer in school, etc. However, religious and social conservatives almost always hold libertarian economic views with secular justifications.

 

Why is this? If my religious beliefs inform my stance on gay marriage, then why doesn't it inform my stance on taxation? Or put differently, if I have secular, pragmatic reasoning for supporting lower taxes, why do I not have secular reasoning underpinning my social views? Am I wrong to expect more diversity in the economic views of religious/social conservatives? If so, what is the connection?

 

Relatedly, I found this article from a few months ago that's relevant here, though much more broadly. I thought this quote provocative:

 

But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away.

 

Christian, Not Conservative | The American Conservative