"To Help Other People At All Times"

[ntrog8r]

"In the place I was at that time, my liason warned me about the practice and had evidence that children had been intentionally maimed by a parent and sold or rented across the border for use by professional beggars in order to gain greater sympathy from their customers. Every cent given to this system supported the intentional harm to innocent children."

 

PackSaddle - You're absolutely right and I couldn't agree with your decision more. There are many places where children are exploited by maiming to increase the "charitable giving" of western tourists that take pity on their condition. It is a sad and terrible thing preying on the child and the caring instincts of the giver. As I said, my wife is a giver, and I've had to explain how "giving" can further fuel this atrocity. If only giving and helping were simple! Even in the US, direct giving often enables more alchohol/drug use which is why I encourage gifts of food and not cash.

 

In times past I used to offer the beggars that gathered in the entrance of a box store in town all the water they could drink, three meals, a shower, and $20 to come work on our property for a day. The willing would get a ride out to our place and back, help me get my outdoor projects done - digging, moving rocks, etc. I once got a guy tell me about his days as a mechanic - he worked on my vehicle, the well pump, helped install some solar panels, and taught me quite a bit while earning extra money. My "neighbors" ran a Christian mission - provided free room and board, three meals a day, job training, and paid $100 a month but they had to work the farm and attend religious services. They stopped this when hit with a lawsuit by a couple of their guests and the ACLU.

 

In the end, how we "help other people" is a very personal choice - which is why it is a _personal_ commitment. Organizations do wonderful work, programs enable a wider reach than the actions of a single person - but in the end we each have to decide who and how to help for ourselves.

[CalicoPenn]

I always find it interesting when folks discuss the General Welfare clause and the enumerated powers that they insist on quoting only Jefferson, Madison and the Federalists and never quote folks like Hamilton and the Republicans, who were on the opposite side of the issues.

 

I always find it fascinating that folks will quote Jefferson's statements on the limits placed on government by the Constitution without ever mentioning Jefferson's hypocritical ignoring of those limits when he refused to find a constitutional justification to making the Louisiana Purchase, thought by most, including the Federalists, to be blatantly unconstitutional.

 

It's also interesting that in all these back-and-forth arguments about what the authors of the Constitution meant, we fail to take into account the resolutions passed by the Constitutional Convention that were binding on the convention committees that wrote the various texts. In the case of federal power, the resoluton said that Congress would have all the powers it had under the Articles of Confederation plus the powers to "legislate in all Cases for the general Interests of the Union". The framers used the Articles of Confederation as their guide, and specifically removed the limitation that Congress would have only powers "expressly delegated" to it because that provision had proven, under the Articles of Confederation, to be "destructive to the Union".

 

For over 200 years, the Congress and the Supreme Court have interpreted the language to mean that Section 8 has both enumerated and implied powers, and that as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution, and can properly fall into the federal sphere, then laws and programs created under the implied powers of the common defense and general welfare clauses are Constitutional.

 

The Federalists made their arguments over 200 years ago on enumerated powers. They lost. Quoting them now is like quoting Jefferson Davis when arguing about whether slavery should be allowed.

[TAHAWK]

I find it both interesting and fascinating that people use "interesting" and "fascinating" when they mean "wrong."

 

While it has not happened often, the United States Supreme Court has held federal legislation unconstitutional for violation of the Tenth Amendment. Apparently someone thinks that the Tenth Amendment, adopted after the Constitution and therefore controlling over prior provisions, means something after all: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)).

 

As to the age of a wrong idea as justifying it, that fortunately is not a legal principle that holds much weight. Error supposedly sanctified by age is error still. African-American had been regarded as mere property for centuries - much more than 200 years, as recognized in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 650 U.S. 393 (1857), before "All men are created equal" finally received the weight it should have been given as a harbinger of change.

 

History will judge, but the voters sooner still.

[Papadaddy]

In our church, the current sermon series is on discipleship, and what Jesus expects of us as disciples. I've been thinking about that a lot lately. When Jesus commanded us to "love one another as I have loved you", did he mean to go out personally and minister to the needs of our fellow man? Or is simply voting to confiscate the treasures of others to force them to give to their fellow man good enough?

[Beavah]

Or is simply voting to confiscate the treasures of others to force them to give to their fellow man good enough

 

Oh puhlease. I expect papadaddy didn't mean this the way it sounded and was just echoing some of da Tom-fool bloggers he's read, but I am sick to death of this disgusting, anti-American rhetoric. it's just shameful.

 

Taxes are an obligation and duty of citizenship in a democracy. We (hopefully) teach that to every First Class scout as he comes up for rank, right along with service on a jury and being an informed voter and takin' up arms if called to do so.

 

We vote taxes on ourselves as citizens. And, because there will always be a few freeloaders who try to dodge or cheat their way around their obligations, we provide for enforcement. Of jury duty. Of selective service. Of taxes. That isn't "confiscating the treasure of others". That's enforcing the law against cheats and villains.

 

Conservatives believe in paying our way, and that those who have been given much have a special duty to others. Liberals believe in paying their way, and that those who have been given much have a special duty to others. Christians, Jews, Muslims... all believe in paying their own way, and that those who have been given much have a special duty to others. We can differ on specific policies, eh? That's fine, and engagin' in that is part of citizenship too.

 

But just being mindlessly anti-tax ain't compatible with da Oath and Law, or with citizenship.

 

Poor choice of rhetoric aside, I agree with papadaddy, eh? Just giving money, or just giving labor aren't enough. Christianity and citizenship demand both.

 

B

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Beavah,

 

 

I'll agree that taxes are a necessary evil. But that means they are BOTH necessary AND EVIL.

 

 

As a practical matter, taxes are a form of legalized strong arm robbery. You pay your taxes or you expect to be beaten up and have your money taken anyway. But of course that also means it is LEGALIZED robbery.

 

I think we need more emphasis on the robbery angle of taxes, because government these days is all too ready to take whatever they can to fund whatever programs appeal to the special interest groups that put them in power.

 

Just recently, the Washington State legislature adopted a law authorizing King County (Seattle) to add $20 to add funding to the local transit system. The Mayor of Seattle saw that and now has his own bright idea, let's add an $80 fee to the $20 for more city spending!

 

Given a chance, government has a pretty much unlimited appetite for more tax revenue. I don't think citizens have an obligation to fund those appetites.

 

There are some government services that are necessary --- and a lot more that aren't.

 

 

 

[Papadaddy]

"those who have been given much have a special duty to others". Couldn't agree more, Beav. But in my opinion, when that "special duty" is enforced by the Govt upon threat of fine or prison, it ceases to be "charity" in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim tradition, also sometimes translated as "love" (agape). What I meant was, expecting the "Govt" to fulfill your "special duty" is a cop-out. Charity (love) must come from the heart...not at the point of a spear. I am already giving my "fair share" of revenue (and i hope God agrees). I just don't filter it all through the United States Treasury and allow them to decide where it goes. Those who choose not to give their fair share should have to answer only to their creator.

[Beavah]

I'll agree that taxes are a necessary evil. But that means they are BOTH necessary AND EVIL.

 

Yeh do understand that da term "necessary evil" has always been a bit of a joke, right? It's an oxymoron, used to gripe in a humorous way. No real evil is ever necessary, evil should always be opposed.

 

Taxation in a democracy isn't robbery, and it isn't evil, it's citizenship. It's people recognizing that if they want roads and police and health insurance for the aged and a national defense that they actually have to pay for 'em. And that it's better to do some things as a community than it is to do 'em as individuals.

 

The issue of forcing payment of taxes only comes up when yeh have freeloaders who want da benefits of living in a community but who aren't willing to pay for 'em. Yep, and that includes those who don't want to pay for some things that the majority wants but they personally don't. Just like a family, you get input in a community, but yeh don't get to dictate. Pacificists have to support da army, non-campers have to support da national parks, folks without kids have to support da schools. That's citizenship.

 

Yah, sure, we can debate what services we want and whether certain things are better done collectively or privately. A lot can depend on your community. If yeh live in rural areas yeh might be willing to dump trash on your back 40, but if yeh live in a city the community really doesn't want yeh piling trash in your backyard, so payin' for trash pickup makes sense. Small towns can get by with volunteer fire fighters, but not larger ones. Maybe insurance should be like payin' for da police, somethin' the whole community does, or maybe it should be private, where only those who want it get (different levels of) coverage. Maybe it depends what kind of insurance. Debating what's best is part of living in a community, too.

 

But it's only a debate among community members, eh? Let's not confuse it with good vs. evil, or with committing a crime like robbery.

 

when that special duty is enforced by the Govt by fine or prison, it ceases to be charity

 

Yah, I agree papadaddy. It instead becomes an obligation of citizenship, because unlike real charity we expect to get something in return. We expect to receive social security, we expect to collect unemployment if we suddenly lose our job through no fault of our own, etc. That's not charity. Charity expects nothing in return. By and large, when it comes to charity, I prefer that to be done by individuals. We're better at it than government in individual cases, and it helps avoid silly sentiments like SP's if things are a religious obligation rather than a civil one.

 

If we're honest, though, we have to admit that most of us Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't live up to our religious obligations of true charity without social pressure at least. The Bible tells us to tithe 10%. That's 10% of our total wealth every year, on top of what we pay for taxes for things like police and roads and defense and insurance and such, for which we receive or expect a benefit. Us Christian folks are challenged by the Lord and da early Christian community to do even more than that, eh? To sell all we have and give to those in need as an important act of real discipleship.

 

Beavah

[TAHAWK]

Excuse me? One is a "freeloader" to not "want" to pay taxes that the transient majority wants them to pay? That's fairly "1984." Roll out the Thought Police. Dissent is not to be allowed, even inside the privacy of one's thoughts.

 

In a society where we approach a minority being required to pay income taxes, that's more than a bit much.

 

As for "necessary evil," that is the lesser of two evils: e.g. sacrificing our sons and daughters in a war for national survival. Thinkers have written about the concept for centuries.

 

So you may not agree with Jefferson, Washington, and others about the danger of government. Fine. Just leave off telling those of us who have lived the wonderfulness of ever-larger, ever more expensive, ever more wasteful, ever more intrusive government that we are, somehow, bad people because we don't like what we see or its consequences.

 

Government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

[CalicoPenn]

If Jefferson, Washington, et. al. truly believed that government was dangerous, then they wouldn't have fought so hard to create their own form of government, would they?

 

What they believed is that government could be used in dangerous ways. That government could be used, in the manner of the British Monarchy, to subjugate the citizens as mere serfs and slaves.

 

None of the Founding Fathers was anti-tax. The Boston Tea party wasn't about demanding that taxes be abolished. The Founding Fathers believed that taxation needed to be equitable, and done with representation. Case in point - the tax that led to the Boston Tea Party - British tea was taxed much lower than native tea, giving British tea an unfair advantage. The Boston Tea Party was meant to send a message that tea is tea is tea, no matter where it's from, and should be taxed the same.

 

The representation is our legislatures in Washington (or state capital, or local government, elected by the people) debating and voting on taxes, rather than having some King just decree by fiat what will or will not be taxed. That system works well for us - and we have a good recent example when the President suggested a tax for artifical tanning, it was debated and voted down. Had we no representation, the President could have simply declared the tax by fiat. Our system of government worked just the way the founding fathers meant it too.

 

Don't want to pay any taxes? Then convince your representatives to reduce or eliminate taxes. Just make sure you can live with the consequences. Taxes are the price we pay to ensure that we have the opportunity to live a long, healthy, fruitful, and profitable life. It's up to you to take advantage of that opportunity, but it's the infrastructure and programs that allow us to have that opportunity. Eliminating or refusing to tax for some programs may feel good in the short term, but in the long term, it will eventually affect our prosperity as a society.

[Beavah]

Excuse me? One is a "freeloader" to not "want" to pay taxes that the transient majority wants them to pay?

 

Nah, one is a poor citizen not to be willing to pay taxes as part of da obligation of citizenship.

 

One is a freeloader if yeh don't pay taxes. So enforcing taxes isn't an act of robbery, it's an act of going after freeloaders and cheats who don't take their responsibilities as a citizen seriously.

 

Of course griping about taxes is as American as apple pie . Let's just not get all foolish about "evil" and "robbery."

 

So you may not agree with Jefferson, Washington, and others about the danger of government. Fine. Just leave off telling those of us who have lived the wonderfulness of ever-larger, ever more expensive, ever more wasteful, ever more intrusive government that we are, somehow, bad people because we don't like what we see or its consequences.

 

If yeh read some of my posts, yeh know that I've warned consistently about da dangers of large and intrusive government. Everything from government run education to da vast expansion of the patent and copyright system that is stifling innovation and small business growth.

 

But that's different than calling taxes robbery, eh? One is conservative citizenship, the other isn't citizenship at all.

 

Yep, government has gotten bigger. Most of that is in proportion to the population, but some of it is additional. We have commercial air service where we didn't used to. GPS satellites. Highways. A vast increase in da military and in border security and prisons. Yep, a lot of that is horrifically wasteful; TSA alone has cost us a huge amount of money in order to prevent ... nothing. But we do get da intrusive theater of the government looking at our wives and children naked and having our elderly parents groped.

 

What we haven't been is overtaxed. Da marginal tax rates are well below anything they've been since before da cold war, despite the addition of all the things mentioned above and more. So we've added to da government, and in some dangerous ways, but haven't paid for it.

 

At the same time we've cut government in a few areas that have cost us. Financial regulation and oversight and prosecution, offshore drilling regulation and oversight, da current FAA fracas. Those government cuts have in the end cost us trillions of dollars. It's just staggeringly irresponsible. And da current folks just toyed with default and cuts which cost us our credit rating and reputation, which will gradually amount to an increased tax on every municipality and individual through added borrowing costs.

 

Conservative government is prudent, not irresponsible. It pays its way with revenues to match expenses, not threatening default. It avoids wholesale intrusion into private liberties like the right to travel or innovate or communicate, but regulates and safeguards commerce to ensure a fair and transparent market free from fraud and coercion.

 

B

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Beavah,

 

 

Sorry, but using appealing words like "citizenship" does dress up what is fundamentally strong armed robbery.

 

I also disagree with you that there is no such thing as a necessary evil. Taxes are a good example of a necessary evil in my opinion.

 

You want to do a sales job on people to make them LOVE paying taxes, and that goes too far by half in my opinion.

 

In my opinion people should be highly skeptical about government demands for tax revenue. People spend their life earning income, and government should lay a claim to that income only for the best possible reasons.

 

Sorry Beavah --- I think you are just plain wrong with your arguments and we'll just have to disagree.

[Scoutfish]

While necessary evil isn't the exact terms I might use, it's pretty darn close.

 

While I can't put the prefect appropriate name to it, It is more along the lines of an amiccable agreement:

WE agree to pay "X" amount of taxes in return, we get "X" amount of services: Judges, courts, policr protection, militray defense, ect.

 

But there is a very large amount of straong armed tactics too: When the government funds hokey studies, public polls or such, and we pay that with our taxes without the option of "ala mode" choice in what we pay for...then we are being fleeced.

 

Granted, I like to help people in need. But take the whole thing that happened in the great state of NC this year ( a few months ago as a matter of fact)

 

Scores and scores of teachers and other state and country employees were let go due to budget shortfalls

 

Yet the NC house speaker gave out raises between $25,000.00 to $45,000.00 to his 7 staff members.....six of who just started this year!

 

THey had been employeed in their positions less than 6 months, and after raises, their salaries average around $70,000.00 a year!

 

Where did that money come from?

 

TAXES

 

These employees got bonus rases ( after less than 6 months on teh job) equlat or greater than an entires years salary for the teachers who were let go.

 

Then the following week, the news rans stories of the teacher /student ratios being so out of whack, that learning was going to be compromised!

 

So what are they gonna do? Start studying harder for the EOG's and NO STudent Left Behind tests!

[TAHAWK]

One may use fire and not miss it's dangers. Do you think they were trying to mislead with their constant, written warnings about the danger of government power? These were revolutionaries - dangerous people. They had killed the government's men and those who had supported the government. They were suspicious of government and saw it as an institution that, by its very nature, tended to grow in power, and in growing restrict liberty. The N.Y. Times would not have liked them at all. Confronted by such men, the VP might have fainted dead away.

 

Attempting to reduce a position with which you do not agree to an absurd extreme is well-worn rhetorical tactic -- like calling those who want the government to stop piling up debt "terrorists" or Obama a "Communist."

 

Very few oppose all taxation, any more than they oppose all government. (I have voted for most tax increases put in front of me as a voter because I felt they were appropriate.)

 

Government, however, is like the alcoholic. A sip leads to a gulp, and a gulp leads to a binge. We have just witnessed the greatest spending binge in national history. The government proposed a budget with no decrease in the record annual rate of deficit (increase in debt). Apparently, sharp reduction in access to money is the only measure some politicians understand. Giving them the keys to the "liquor cabinet" and asking for moderation would be a disservice to the nation and those who will be it's citizens in the future.

 

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

 

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

 

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

 

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

 

"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

 

Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and Washington.

 

This only works if the government stops piling up debts as if there were no downside to bankruptcy.

[Beavah]

People spend their life earning income, and government should lay a claim to that income only for the best possible reasons.

 

People are only able to spend their life earning income because they are part of a community that provides support for that enterprise. Roads, laws, a system to enforce contracts and employment law, on and on. The people can vote to tax themselves for any reasonable reason, from maintaining roads to providing group campsites in da state park for scouts to use.

 

If yeh really don't want to pay taxes, try Somalia. That's what yeh get. Sovereign bankruptcy, lawlessness, no stable commerce. Or go live in a shack in da Canadian outback off da grid.

 

Personally, I don't choose to live in Somalia, eh? So I cheerfully pay my taxes as a duty of citizenship. Just like those who like the right to trial by jury should cheerfully serve on a jury, and those who want to be defended by da military should be willin' to serve in it. That's being a good citizen. Yeh can claim any of those things is being forced against your will and all that nonsense, of course. In which case, again, I suggest Somalia. No military or police to protect yeh against pirates or armed gangs, and no juries to serve on.

 

-----

 

Tawhawk, yeh need to go back and read your history books more carefully. As often as they considered da risks of government the founding fathers spent more time worryin' about the mob of unruly people and tryin' to insulate government from the masses. Especially da risk of populist loonies in da House doin' somethin' stupid. Remember, the folks at the Constitutional Convention were there to strengthen the central government by abandoning the Articles of Confederation. They felt a weak and ineffectual central government was dangerous and not in da best interest of the new nation.

 

Yah, there is a risk of da populace votin' itself largesse out of the public purse. We have that issue with Medicare in particular, and with uncontrolled and unfunded military and security expenditures.

 

The spending binge from 2001 to 2007 was bad, because it was discretionary, and interest rates were higher. We cut taxes goin' into two wars and a major expansion of da Medicare entitlement. Haven't done anything that foolish since Johnson's "guns and butter" during Vietnam. Most of us conservatives in 2001 were arguin' for just keepin' the taxes in place and payin' down the debt. We lost that argument to da Dems and neo-cons.

 

The spending from 2008 to 2010 was not discretionary. That was a simple choice, between Great Depression II and massive intervention. Without the rescue, the banks would have failed, the FDIC would have collapsed, unemployment would be above 20% and the deficit would be just as large, because of greater loss of revenue. It's OK to be angry about it, I reckon almost all of us are. But there really wasn't a choice, for either Bush with TARP or Obama with da stimulus.

 

Happily, our borrowing costs were phenomenally cheap. Even now, we can borrow on 30-year notes at well below 2%. Borrowing at that rate is a no-brainer. Yeh do it and invest. There's almost no downside. We've been blessed, because until a week or two ago everyone in the world felt our debt was the safe haven to retreat to when everything else was uncertain. This means we could borrow very, very cheaply in bad times. Nobody else in da world has had that privilege that Congress is doin' its best to squander.

 

At da current rates, good business sense says we should be borrowin' more, and usin' it to fix our infrastructure. Build roads, fix bridges, build high speed communications, modernize the power grid, fund research. Put people to work on stuff that yields long-term economic growth. Yeh do that, because that economic growth will pay off at more than 2%. Anyone who understands business knows that. So there's no point in freakin' out about cheap, long-term debt. Cheap borrowing is an invitation to invest.

 

What is worth addressin' is long term structural deficits. Those are worryin'. And those need to be addressed by a combination of entitlement restructuring, military cuts, and revenue increases. Da best time to do that is after we're further along in the recovery, as interest rates rise. Not right at the moment when da stimulus and Fed intervention are ending and that blow (coupled with da damage Congress just did) hasn't been fully absorbed.

 

Now back to reality, eh? Plenty of scout families in our area were saved from homelessness by da extension of federal unemployment benefits the last two years. Some more that were helped by job retraining, because their old manufacturing jobs are not comin' back. Simply put, private charities and individuals were caught in the same downturn and didn't have da resources to help.

 

Was that a worthy investment? Kept house prices from collapsing further and other families from goin' under. Put some taxpayers back to work who are contributin' to da rolls again. Kept some boys in scouting. If yeh had had the money, wouldn't you have helped such families?

 

B