Charity Cheapskates - Should Government "Keep" our brother?

[WhiskeyGirl]

"We truly are our brothers keeper" - paraphrase of something I've heard Barack Obama speak many times.

Are we our brother's keeper?  Or, does this responsibility belong to the government?  Which is more efficient? 

- A government digging deep into taxpayer pockets, subtracting a service fee (government workers and expenses) and then helping our brother (or sister) with expenses?

- A caring individual reaching into their own pocket to provide for the less fortunate, or perhaps a caring individual spending their time to help those in need?

Biden and Obama: Charity Cheapskates
 
The myth of liberal "compassion" has been roundly and soundly debunked in the past couple of years.

Conservatives routinely give more--far more--to charity than the liberals who spout "compassion, compassion" like rabid parrots.

Liberals are big on giving to others....when it involves someone elses money. Liberals are big on sending the government to take your money and give it to someone else (whether they deserve it or not), whether you want to or not. But when it comes to giving of their own...well, that's a different story.

Even the Most Beneficent One Lord Barack Obama, the #1 most liberal senator, was revealed a few months ago to be a charity cheapskate when it comes to giving.

According to the ABC News blog,

The Obamas' donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income.

The Hill reports that last year the Palin's gave almost more than Obama's running mate Joe Biden did in the last 10 years. And in 2006, they did give more than Biden did in the last 10 years.

In 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 in taxes on $127,869 in income. In 2007, they paid $24,738 on $166,080.

But in 2006, they donated $4,880 to charity, and in 2007, they donated $3,325.

By contrast, Biden (D-Del.), Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obamas-gave-les.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/palin-gives-more-to-charity-than-biden-despite-less-income-2008-10-03.html

Hmmm. At the risk of patting myself on the back too much and minimizing my "reward in Heaven," it looks like on my paltry income my family gave more to charity last year than Biden did in the last 10 years.

If liberals really believed in charity and compassion so much, why don't they abandon socialism and do it the Biblical way--where private individuals and groups help people in need?

If liberals really want to build up our country and help those less fortunate, why don't they embrace the wisdom of the Founders and return to private charity?

After all, James Madison said

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

And as Congressman Davy Crockett reminded us

We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

The wisdom of the Bible and the Founders--along with the behavior of Biden himself--ultimately proves that his foolish contention that paying more taxes (so it can be redistributed to government bureaucrats paychecks and "others in need") is "patriotic" is simply this: wrapping up socialism in the flag in an attempt to justify government policy that is profoundly un-American.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/10/biden-and-obama-charity-cheapskates.html

What if people disagree on the best way to 'keep' our brother?  "Give me a fish and I eat for a day, teach me to fish and I eat for a life time."  (first, there must be fish or jobs)

The national debt of the US rises daily.  The $700 billion is new icing on the cake.

In the world bankruptcy court (not sure where that is by the way), will the US be able to renegotiate some of the debt loans with foreign nations?

Will the US have to give away national treasures when these governments ask us to pay up?  Maybe the old growth forrests?  Fishing rights?  Fresh water?  Land for strip mining?

It sounds good when people want to help their brothers and sisters in need, but it's another thing when they want to do it with other peoples money.

Why not ask for donations?  Let people look in their heart and come up with an amount that is financially responsible?  Or, perhaps ask for time? 

[WhiskeyGirl]

Conservatives Compassionate With Their Own Money (Not Yours)
 
Liberals are infinitely more compassionate and concerned with the needy than conservatives, right? Wrong. Flat wrong.

I've written about this a number of times before, but judging by some of the comments left at Dakota Voice today, some folks weren't in school those days.

His column points out that while the stereotype is that liberals are more compassionate toward the needy than are conservatives, the opposite is true.

Why would such a stereotype develop? Might it have something to do with the contention that liberals are always more generous than conservatives...when it comes to giving away someone elses money? Might it have something to do with the fact that when conservatives point out that our Constitution does not authorize expenditures of taxpayer funds for the purposes of compassion, the Left and their media accomplices waste no time in branding conservatives as "haters" and "mean spirited" and "cold-hearted" and "uncaring?"

Wills' column reminds readers of a book written a couple of years ago by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University: “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” Brooks' research found that conservatives are more generous.

But back to Will's column, he cites some of the information from Brooks' book:

• 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 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Will's article points out that Al Gore is another of these big-spenders-of-other-people's-money-but-not-his-own. In 2000, he gave 0.2% to charity. Wow. What a big heart.

Why are conservatives--many of whom are Christians--so much more generous? Maybe it has to do with their recognition of the proper role of charity and compassion as a private function, not a government function. Both the Bible and the Constitution tell us this.

Consider that nowhere in the Bible does it say government should take money from one person and give it to another in the name of "charity." Consider what else the Bible says about the needy and "compassion":

- If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

- Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exodus 23:3)

- Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

- If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

- These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

- As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

- If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)

Consider what some of the Founders (who helped write the Constitution and set up our government) and early statesmen had to say on the subject of government charity:

- A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

We as individuals can and should help those in need. But Christ's admonitions to do so were to PEOPLE, not GOVERNMENT. When government forces charitable giving on those who have in order to give to those who have not, it robs both of the blessing.

Government also has a poor track record of recognizing when need comes about because of immoral and unwise lifestyle choices (drug abuse, alcoholism, gambling addictions, poor financial skills), and by supplying money with limited accountability and not teaching the recipient a better way, enables the person to continue an unproductive and self-destructive lifestyle.

read more here -
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/03/conservatives-compassionate-with-their.html

How are American's going to pay for all the new spending?  Old debt?  New debt?  When does the self-destructive lifestyle end?