Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Vance]

That is were the break down is. You view a government program as charity. I do not. You also run into a massive problem. You might wonder why blue states are less charitable than red states. It might be, just might be because liberals view government programs as charity. So why should a wealthy liberial donate to their church or charity (Like Joe Biden) when they have ineffiecent  "charity" programs already set up to take care of the poor.

The stingiest people I know are liberals, and they brag about voting more money out of OTHER PEOPLE'S pockets for the government dole.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance:

  Whose desire it is to reduce the size of the government to that which can be drowned in a bathtub

No one, that is a total straw man on your part. What we want is not the elmination of all programs. Some of them are good. But most are not set up to actually do anything more than help those that don't need it just so they will vote for democrates. And the fraud and waste is so massive. I just don't get why you think the government is better at doing things than the private sector. Nothing the federal government does is cheaper or better than the private sector basically because the goverment doesn't have to make money. There is no real accountibility. There is no bottom line. If they are out of money they just print it or take through taxes or both. They also don't procuce anything.  Cant you see this? Even now?

 

I am in the health care business. And unlike Obama care what we are doing is actually saving people money. Upwards of 20% and we do it in a way that is easy and efficent.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

I think an anology might help with this.

Person A has 100 bucks. Person B has none. Person C comes along and takes the money through complusoury means from person A and gives part of it to person B so he can buy food. Is it theft that person C took it from person A? How is that different from our current set up?

 

The funny part is that in our system money is taken out of my check before I even get it. I don't even have a choice in the matter. If I don't pay it I am fined and I could go to jail.

 

As a citizen you have agreed to be taxed. You also have agreed that not paying taxes is a punishable offense. You are free at any time to remove your consent. The down side is that you either relinquish your citizenship, or you pay the penalty.

[Vance]

Vance:

 

When our government taxes more than what we(as citizens) feel is right. We through our elected representatives lower that tax rate. If we feel it is not enough we through our elected representative raise the rate. There always are those that no tax rate is too low.

And there are those that no tax rate is too high, as long as it applies to someone else.

The flaw in your argument is that nearly 50% of those who vote for higher taxes DON'T have to pay the higher taxes that they are voting for.  It is called the tyranny of the majority.

Whose desire it is to reduce the size of the government to that which can be drowned in a bathtub.

That is liberal/progressive RUBBISH! To you guys EVERYONE who thinks that government has gotten to big wants to eliminate it all together. Just more leftist lies.

That by definition is an anarchist.

There are a few anarchists around. But they are a very very small minority.

There are those that no tax rate is too high. That by definition is a totalitarian.

And there are those that no tax rate is too high, as long as it applies to someone else. That by definition is a leftist/progressive.

In this country there are functional limits at both extremes.

But not to the liberal/progressive agenda, right!

[Vance]

As a citizen you have agreed to be taxed. You also have agreed that not paying taxes is a punishable offense. You are free at any time to remove your consent. The down side is that you either relinquish your citizenship, or you pay the penalty.

That was the beauty of the Constitution BEFORE it was changed (by hook and by crook) to allow the Federal Gov to tax INDIVIDUAL income. Before then, if a State's tax rate became unreasonable, you could freely move to another State that had a lower rate. But now, there is nowhere to flee to.

Thus demonstrating the foolishness of that amendment (which was passed with a some nefarious shenanigans).

[thesometimesaint]

That is were the break down is. You view a government program as charity. I do not. You also run into a massive problem. You might wonder why blue states are less charitable than red states. It might be, just might be because liberals view government programs as charity. So why should a wealthy liberial donate to their church or charity (Like Joe Biden) when they have ineffiecent  "charity" programs already set up to take care of the poor.

 

You also made a comment that you basically feel that the reason the rich are rich is because they stole it from the poor. Let me tell you that that position is the most illogical position I have ever heard. The poor have no money to take. That is why they are poor. The owner of my company who is quite wealthy didn't steal the money from some bum on the street. She got it from providing a service that many people can use it at a very affordable rate and her over head is low. No theft here.

 

I guess in the end we will just have to agree to disagree.  I just don't understand, the scriptures are replete with numerous examples that everything starts on a personal level and we take personal responsibility for our selves and others. I just don't understand how you guys walk away from all that and think that some how we should have the government (esp when there is so much corruption) do it all or most of it. Just makes no sense to me.  I guess if you guys think it is some grand idea you will reap what you sow. There is also another issue of cost of these programs. Oh well. 

 

I'm a moderately conservative liberal. I have never believed that Government is a charity. I'm for governmental programs for a entirely selfish reason. When more people have more money they buy the services I provide. When people are too poor to afford my services both they and I suffer.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As a citizen you have agreed to be taxed. You also have agreed that not paying taxes is a punishable offense. You are free at any time to remove your consent. The down side is that you either relinquish your citizenship, or you pay the penalty.

Dude you keep trotting this out. I have neither agreed nor consented to being taxed. No one has ever asked me. It is done by compulsion and the laws were enacted most of them before you are I were even born.  Now, I fully admit that taxes in general are not a bad thing and I don't have a problem with a modest tax.

 

What I don't get is that before the income tax done in 1913 I believe, how did we survive as a country? And if we survived before the income tax reason stands that we could again. My arguements have to do with the progressive tax argument. That because the rich make more they should be taxed at a higher rate. Hence my anology. Person A is rich because he has 100 bucks. Person C is the government and takes that money through compulsion and gives it to person B who is poor. In the real world that is theft. When it comes to the government because it is "legal" you guys on the left give it a pass. So what we have is legalized theft. It is wrong. Something is wrong regarless of what the intent is. Intent does not make something right. Also legal doesn't make it right either.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Vance]

The United States is a democracy, and a constitutional republic.

Initially, ONLY land owning MEN could vote. I don't think that would count as a democracy. Since a democracy is "Rule by Omnipotent Majority".

 

You can have a constitutional republic with little or no input from the public masses, and there are numerous historical examples of this. A constitutional republic is simply a government without an inheritable head of state.

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers, in which public offices are consequently appointed or elected rather than privately accommodated (i.e., through inheritance or divine mandate).

The Constitution provided for both the election and appointment of PUBLIC offices. So, YES, it is a Republic NOT a Democracy.

Democracy is a process whereby the people choose its leaders through voting.

A democracy doesn't require a vote for "leaders", it can be nothing more that MOB rule.

The democracy decried by the Founding Fathers (which is the mob rule you are referring to) is a direct democracy wherein the populace votes on every issue, for every leader, etc. What the United States has is an indirect democracy, where in the people vote for their leaders, who represent them in Congress, or their vote tells the electoral college who to vote for President.

In other words, it is a Constitutional Republic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm a moderately conservative liberal. I have never believed that Government is a charity. I'm for governmental programs for a entirely selfish reason. When more people have more money they buy the services I provide. When people are too poor to afford my services both they and I suffer.

If you assume everyone is poor. Which is not the case. I want to have the utopian society too but the reality is that we live in a selfish world. And people are selfish. Not all mind you. There are many that are very generous. And I want every one to have a 50 inch TV a big house and drive a Benz. But in this world it is not going to happen right now. I can't agree with your last statement because that just is not reality. Yes when some one can't afford what you are selling both of you lose. But a lot can afford your service. And you both benefit there.

 

The charity comes in when you can afford to help those less fortuante than you. Hey I have 3 guitar amps little jimmy can't afford to buy one even though I work for a music shop. Out of the goodness of my heart I give him one of my personal amps. That is the personal responsibility that I keep talking about. The other solution is one of the government. Hey we set up a program that takes guitar amps through a tax  from the rich manufacters and we have guideliness for people that qualify to get an amp if they cant afford one. One huge issue is that this program now prevents me from helping little Jimmy if he goes to the government first. That oppertunity is now taken from me. 2ndly it now cost the business more money to stay in business because they have to pay for the government program and that makes the cost on everything go up for everyone else.

[jkwilliams]

Dude you keep trotting this out. I have neither agreed nor consented to being taxed. No one has ever asked me. It is done by compulsion and the laws were enacted most of them before you are I were even born.  Now, I fully admit that taxes in general are not a bad thing and I don't have a problem with a modest tax.

Every time you vote, you consent to being governed by those who win the elections. Unless you know something I don't know, our elected officials support taxing us to one degree or another. As long as you aren't openly rebelling against the government--in which case you'd be unlikely to vote--you have chosen to participate in our system of government, and participation indicates consent to be governed by the laws of that system. So, yes, you have consented to being taxed.

 

What I don't get is that before the income tax done in 1913 I believe, how did we survive as a country? And if we survived before the income tax reason stands that we could again. My arguements have to do with the progressive tax argument. That because the rich make more they should be taxed at a higher rate. Hence my anology. Person A is rich because he has 100 bucks. Person C is the government and takes that money through compulsion and gives it to person B who is poor. In the real world that is theft. When it comes to the government because it is "legal" you guys on the left give it a pass. So what we have is legalized theft. It is wrong. Something is wrong regarless of what the intent is. Intent does not make something right. Also legal doesn't make it right either.

I'm a pretty strong conservative and prefer smaller government and lower taxes. That said, the major changes in the scope and intent of US government came during and immediately after the Civil War. Like it or not, our federal government became more powerful and centralized during Lincoln's and Johnson's administration. (Real income taxes began with the Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1862.) So, this "legalized theft" has been going on a long time.

As for the notion of taking my money and giving it to someone else, that is the gist of taxation in general. If, say, I pay state income taxes, and my state provides tax breaks for a corporation that resides in the state, am I not essentially taking my taxes and giving it to the corporation? The only way not to engage in this legalized theft would be to make sure that my taxes were used directly to benefit me or I could direct where they were spent. It doesn't work.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That was the beauty of the Constitution BEFORE it was changed (by hook and by crook) to allow the Federal Gov to tax INDIVIDUAL income. Before then, if a State's tax rate became unreasonable, you could freely move to another State that had a lower rate. But now, there is nowhere to flee to.

Thus demonstrating the foolishness of that amendment (which was passed with a some nefarious shenanigans).

Dude you are so right on the money here. My main issue is the federal income tax. I have no issues with what ever a state wants to tax. Some states have a high rate. Some have no rate.

[Vance]

Selfishness and greed should not be tolerated,

So, should we stone them, or throw them in jail and confiscate their property? Perhaps hanging?

Or should we preach to them instead and allow them to repent?

And if the don't repent, should we then stone/hang/throw in jail and confiscate their property?

and if it takes our Lord to come back and set things straight, then so be it.

I trust Him. I don't trust anyone who thinks it is ok to take from someone else simply because they happen to have more.

But I'd rather we try to get things distributed more fairly before that, if at all possible.

So, you don't like the way the Lord is distributing stuff now?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Every time you vote, you consent to being governed by those who win the elections. Unless you know something I don't know, our elected officials support taxing us to one degree or another. As long as you aren't openly rebelling against the government--in which case you'd be unlikely to vote--you have chosen to participate in our system of government, and participation indicates consent to be governed by the laws of that system. So, yes, you have consented to being taxed.

 

I'm a pretty strong conservative and prefer smaller government and lower taxes. That said, the major changes in the scope and intent of US government came during and immediately after the Civil War. Like it or not, our federal government became more powerful and centralized during Lincoln's and Johnson's administration. (Real income taxes began with the Revenue Acts of 1861 and 1862.) So, this "legalized theft" has been going on a long time.

As for the notion of taking my money and giving it to someone else, that is the gist of taxation in general. If, say, I pay state income taxes, and my state provides tax breaks for a corporation that resides in the state, am I not essentially taking my taxes and giving it to the corporation? The only way not to engage in this legalized theft would be to make sure that my taxes were used directly to benefit me or I could direct where they were spent. It doesn't work.

Interesting. I get states rights. I have no issue with them. My main beef comes from the federal government and what it tries to do. When I type what I do I am refering to the federal level. And I understand all of your points I really have nothing I could disagree with. As vance pointed out if things were still done they way they were back in the day I could just move to a different state if I didn't like what was going on. But now there is no way to escape most of it because it is done at the federal level.

 

 

 

Just found this. "According to the History of the Income Tax in our almanac, the federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Read more: The Federal Income Tax | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/federal-income-tax.html#ixzz2o2irBlhW"

Edited December 20, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jkwilliams]

Interesting. I get states rights. I have no issue with them. My main beef comes from the federal government and what it tries to do. When I type what I do I am refering to the federal level. And I understand all of your points I really have nothing I could disagree with. As vance pointed out if things were still done they way they were back in the day I could just move to a different state if I didn't like what was going on. But now there is no way to escape most of it because it is done at the federal level.

 

 

 

Just found this. "According to the 

History of the Income Tax in our almanac, the federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894, then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court the following year. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Read more: The Federal Income Tax | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/federal-income-tax.html#ixzz2o2irBlhW"

Yep. That's pretty much it. Strictly speaking, it wasn't unconstitutional to levee income tax on people from the federal level, as long as it was applied by population, not individually. After the Pollock decision, there was a large movement in support of a federal income tax, with various groups supporting the tax for different reasons. I doubt very much it would have taken any major chicanery to pass the sixteenth amendment, as the federal income tax had broad support when it was enacted.

Edited December 20, 2013 by jkwilliams

[pmccombs1]

You have perfectly defined the leftist/progressive/socialist types. They want to impose their vision of "utopia" upon the rest of us. 

 

 

I don't think any political or economic platform is free of extremists who wish to see their vision of utopia. That you only see it in those whom you despise is, I think, sufficient evidence of your own zealous myopia.

 

 

I am not an anarchist, And, like you, I am not trying to impose my will on others. BUT I do NOT like them imposing their will upon me. Because I know that their agenda WILL result in chaos and violence. 

 

Them? If you do not submit to any will but your own, then you are in the state of war. You don't need to presuppose chaos and violence from the agenda of others; you have already brought it with you. When will you stop looking at the world as "us vs. them" and realize that we are all in this together?  As an anarchist, I dissent from the hierarchy and give a non-violent voice to my own will, but I still submit myself to the state. Paul was an excellent example of this, writing from jail that we ought to submit to government. Christianity has always been subversive, but it has never had a belligerent, partisan voice against worldly powers. It invites people to consider citizenship in different, a-political kingdom, that is all.

 

 

Not so, I am attempting to help others see our scriptures from a different point of view from their own.

 

Sometimes hyperbole and rhetoric are not helpful. It is what the choir wishes to hear, but other find it less than persuasive. I'm sure I am guilty of similar abuses, as it seems I am remarkably unpersuasive in my own right.

 

 

Seriously? By comparison, I would say that I have provided FAR more reason than my (political) opponents here.

 

I would say that you have quoted scripture to your own ends and that politics was not the point of this thread. We have the power of being decent to each other and of governing, according to Christian principles, whatever means that are left us, regardless of what the prevailing political attitudes are. I hope that is what pope Francis is calling upon us to do.

[Vance]

I don't think any political or economic platform is free of extremists who wish to see their vision of utopia. That you only see it in those whom you despise is, I think, sufficient evidence of your own zealous myopia.

I am perfectly willing to all the socialists to take a State, (say California) and turn it into their socialist "utopia". It will never work, but I am ok with them attempting it, as long as people can freely enter or leave that state.

BUT, I DISPISE them forcing me to be in their big experiment that is doomed to fail.

I suppose I may be in a "state of war". And when the tyrant left escalates this into bloodshed, which they surely will do, I have a better than even chance at survival. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

[jkwilliams]

I am perfectly willing to all the socialists to take a State, (say California) and turn it into their socialist "utopia". It will never work, but I am ok with them attempting it, as long as people can freely enter or leave that state.

BUT, I DISPISE them forcing me to be in their big experiment that is doomed to fail.

I suppose I may be in a "state of war". And when the tyrant left escalates this into bloodshed, which they surely will do, I have a better than even chance at survival. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Who is "they"? Like it or not, you live in a federal republic with millions of other people who have the same rights that you do. If you don't like the way the government is running, you can and should get involved and fight to build a government that is more to your liking. That's what I do (I've worked in a few political campaigns in my time). Part of our social contract means that we abide by the laws that are passed by our fellow-citizens, even when we don't like those laws. The church didn't declare war on the government when the Supreme Court upheld Reynolds v. United States, essentially forcing the church to abandon plural marriage; the church gave us a great example of working within an imperfect system to flourish and grow.

[halconero]

Initially, ONLY land owning MEN could vote. I don't think that would count as a democracy. Since a democracy is "Rule by Omnipotent Majority".

 

A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern of the rulers, in which public offices are consequently appointed or elected rather than privately accommodated (i.e., through inheritance or divine mandate).

The Constitution provided for both the election and appointment of PUBLIC offices. So, YES, it is a Republic NOT a Democracy.

A democracy doesn't require a vote for "leaders", it can be nothing more that MOB rule.

In other words, it is a Constitutional Republic.

 

Democracy:

 

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

Land owning men were the eligible members of state.

 

Republic:

 

a (1) :  a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

 

b (1) :  a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

 

These two concepts are not entirely inseparable. The Founding Fathers were most definitely against a pure democracy, but not against the melding of the rule of law with input from the people, which is still a form of democracy. This is evidenced by the fact that Thomas Jefferson helped establish the Democratic-Republican party. A constitutional republic ran through democratic processes. 

 

This attitude was also evident among the populace, including Joseph Smith and the founding members of the church:

 

"The Constitution of our country [was] formed by the Fathers of liberty… Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty."

 

"Having an opportunity of speaking to General Wilson, I inquired of him why I was thus treated. I told him I was not aware of having done anything worthy of such treatment; that I had always been a supporter of the Constitution and of democracy. His answer was, “I know it, and that is the reason why I want to kill you, or have you killed.”

[thesometimesaint]

That was the beauty of the Constitution BEFORE it was changed (by hook and by crook) to allow the Federal Gov to tax INDIVIDUAL income. Before then, if a State's tax rate became unreasonable, you could freely move to another State that had a lower rate. But now, there is nowhere to flee to.

Thus demonstrating the foolishness of that amendment (which was passed with a some nefarious shenanigans).

 

And there are those that no tax rate is too high, as long as it applies to someone else.

The flaw in your argument is that nearly 50% of those who vote for higher taxes DON'T have to pay the higher taxes that they are voting for.  It is called the tyranny of the majority.

That is liberal/progressive RUBBISH! To you guys EVERYONE who thinks that government has gotten to big wants to eliminate it all together. Just more leftist lies.

There are a few anarchists around. But they are a very very small minority.

And there are those that no tax rate is too high, as long as it applies to someone else. That by definition is a leftist/progressive.

But not to the liberal/progressive agenda, right!

 

Much the same can be said of those that they is no tax rate low enough. Goose meet Gander.

 

We established a progressive tax rate modeled after Adam Smith.

 

Grover Norquist, whom said his idea was: "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." isn't my idea of a liberal. Maybe he is in your Ayn Rand dream world view.

 

Never said that there were more than a relative few. But they are rather vocal, and have extracted that pledge from 95% of Congressional Republicans to vote the same.

 

So now Reagan with his 50% top income tax rate is now a dreaded Leftist. Let's not forget Eisenhower with his top income tax rate of over 90% is also now a dreaded Leftist. Maybe in your Ayn Rand dream world but not in here in the US.

 

As I said I'm only a moderately conservative liberal. Show me a better way that actually works, and I'll be one of the first if not the first one to promote it. IE; You want to eliminate Food Stamps(SNAP), and so do I. You want charities to do it all. I think they have a role to play. I just believe that everyone that wants it to have a well paying job has it, and so doesn't have to rely on the government or charity just to survive.  Don't you get tired of subsidizing for profit work places like Walmart and McDonald's because they refuse to pay a livable wage to their employees so they can eat? In terms of medical insurance aren't you tired of subsidizing for profit work places like Walmart and McDonald's to the tune many millions of dollars per year because they refuse to pay a livable wage so their employees must use government just to get treated by a doctor. Why not disconnect medical care from employment? We do it for our senior citizens why not for everyone?  It would be cheaper, and more people would get helped.

[thesometimesaint]

Dude you keep trotting this out. I have neither agreed nor consented to being taxed. No one has ever asked me. It is done by compulsion and the laws were enacted most of them before you are I were even born.  Now, I fully admit that taxes in general are not a bad thing and I don't have a problem with a modest tax.

 

What I don't get is that before the income tax done in 1913 I believe, how did we survive as a country? And if we survived before the income tax reason stands that we could again. My arguements have to do with the progressive tax argument. That because the rich make more they should be taxed at a higher rate. Hence my anology. Person A is rich because he has 100 bucks. Person C is the government and takes that money through compulsion and gives it to person B who is poor. In the real world that is theft. When it comes to the government because it is "legal" you guys on the left give it a pass. So what we have is legalized theft. It is wrong. Something is wrong regarless of what the intent is. Intent does not make something right. Also legal doesn't make it right either.

 

Yes you have. By being a citizen you have agreed. By using the roads, highways, bridges, infrastructure you have agreed. By using safe and effective medicine you have agreed. By eating safe food, and drinking safe water you have agreed. By voting for your representatives you have agreed. By being a member of this church you have agreed. I can't think of a single thing that you do that doesn't shout "I AGREE". If you really don't agree. You are free to find a place you do agree with. I hear Somalia is quite lovely this time of year.

 

You start a company. You make a tonne of money. God bless. We in the US are a capitalistic economic system. But you didn't do it all by yourself. You didn't build the roads, highways, bridges, etc. to get customers to your company. You didn't build the fire department, police force, or the military to protect your company. You didn't build the laws that allowed you build your company in the first place. You didn't build the education infrastructure that educated your employees so they could work for you. Etc., Etc., Etc..

 

Abraham Lincoln imposed the first federal Income Tax in 1862 to pay for the US Civil War. We get our ideas about progressive taxation from Adam Smith. By definition if taxes are legal it isn't theft.

Edited December 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

What do you do when Caesar is confiscating more than he should?Which is the pattern SET BY GOD to be followed HERE ON EARTH.So, it was ok what the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists did because they were governments?Do you even think about what you are spouting?But not when that thief is the government.Having a drivers license and auto insurance doesn't "stop the unsafe from driving". It just puts more money into the government coffers.Government doesn't PREVENT those things from happening. They happen INSPITE of government.Coming from you, I will consider that a compliment. THANKS!Which he does NOT condemn.So, it wasn't the acquisition of wealth that was the problem, BUT PRIDE. Got it.Here is a clue for you, it is NOT sharing if the government confiscates it. This is the principle that ignoramuses and leftist fail to understand. Jacob was talking about the giving and sharing OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, NOT through the force of government.True.FALSE!!! He allows them to fail. He allows them to KEEP. He does NOT FORCE them to surrender their property.That still doesn't make what the taxman does right or good or just or fair.

When the government is confiscating more then you feel it right then in a government with democratically elected officials you try to correct the injustice.

I did not state that evil governments were justified because they were governments. I stated that governments have a monopoly on force and use it to maintain order. This power can be used for good or evil.

Your counter on government using force focused entirely on economics and were also wrong. Making people get a license to drive contributes to keeping dangerous drivers off the streets because that right can be rescinded. Same with the rest. I was not arguing the license fee did it. Why does everything come down to money with you?

Your rebuttal on the Jacob verses is inane. I specifically stated that it was not a government charity issue. I stated that when I brought it up originally. I respecified it when I responded to your CFR yet you are castigating me for saying something I specifically said I was not saying twice. You are hopeless.

I also take objection to your idea that God was pro-American government from the beginning. God did give some support for the constitution because of its role in providing a nation in which the gospel could be restored. It was not a slavish declaration the the constitution and federal government were perfect. Remember that at the time Joseph gave that revelation slavery was constitutionally protected and women were denied a role in government. The federal government denied help to the Saints and even invaded Utah unjustly. If it is your belief that God smiled on slavery and is annoyed that we changed his perfect constitution then I really do not want to talk with you anymore as you horrify me.

You stand on stark absolutes. You failed to respond to the scriptural support of the premises of my arguments such as the parable of the 12 Sons and the scriptures where I showed government welfare approved by God in SOME cases. Instead you attack the outskirts of my posts with absolutist dogma and ignore the parts that show that dogma to not be God's position.

[The Nehor]

I am perfectly willing to all the socialists to take a State, (say California) and turn it into their socialist "utopia". It will never work, but I am ok with them attempting it, as long as people can freely enter or leave that state.BUT, I DISPISE them forcing me to be in their big experiment that is doomed to fail.I suppose I may be in a "state of war". And when the tyrant left escalates this into bloodshed, which they surely will do, I have a better than even chance at survival. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

You may want to look at Elder Oak's warning. He advised avoiding right wing paramilitary groups and their stockpile guns philosophy. He stated that the counsel if for a year's supply of food and not a supply of ammunition:

LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations."

Such groups could "undermine the authority of public officials," Oaks said Sunday at a regional Mormon conference broadcast from the Marriott Center on Brigham Young University’s Provo campus, "in the event of extraordinary emergencies or even in cases of simple disagreement with government policy."

Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and processes," the apostle said.

After all, the LDS Church’s food-storage program is about amassing a year’s supply of food and water, Oaks reminded the thousands watching in the giant arena, not "arms and ammunition."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

You start a company. You make a tonne of money. God bless. We in the US are a capitalistic economic system. But you didn't do it all by yourself. You didn't build the roads, highways, bridges, etc. to get customers to your company. You didn't build the fire department, police force, or the military to protect your company. You didn't build the laws that allowed you build your company in the first place. You didn't build the education infrastructure that educated your employees so they could work for you. Etc., Etc., Etc..

Sorry but the "You didn't build that" arguement is old and tired. It didn't work When Obama used it it doesn't work now. My company doesn't use the roads. Infact most of what my company does has very little do with (I mean use) anything that is federal. The only thing that my company does do that is federal is follow all the silly regulations they put in place that most are not necessary. My company doesn't owe the community any more than it pays out in taxes. It didn't go into to business to make sure I had a job. It didn't go into business to make sure poor Timmy has health care.  It didn't go into business to feed the homeless or to make sure there was enough volunteer fire fighters. It went into business because my boss thought she had a great idea to make money on reducing peoples health care costs. Which she has been quite successful. And my education or lack there of I learned entirely on my own. I did not learn these things in the public education system. I learned them over years of being in the field that I am. Don't get me wrong the ower of this company is quite generous in what she does have.

[pmccombs1]

 Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

 

Help from Allah is near, and a speedy victory is assured.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

. By definition if taxes are legal it isn't theft.

Wrong. It just means that it is legal and you wont go to jail for it. Theft is theft. Anyway I am not going to belabor this point. I really doesn't matter. And it is funny you trott out Adam Smith. I have never read any of his works. I understand that a lot of conservative pundits quote him. BUt it really means nothing to me to keep bringing him up. I will say this much I would rather follow smith than keynes.