Steve,

You conveniently missed his main point which is this.

those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Do you think multi-millionaires and billionaires should pay less taxes percentage-wise than their secretaries? How about the same percentage.

Maybe you think the more they make the less they should pay until the scale hits 0% ah?

"Do you think multi-millionaires and billionaires should pay less taxes percentage-wise than their secretaries? How about the same percentage."

Okay, I'll say it. Yes. I'm fine with that.

How about if they both paid the same AMOUNT? Would that be "fair?"

"Maybe you think the more they make the less they should pay until the scale hits 0% ah?"

Sort of sounds like an incentive to me. The only problem with it is the drop-off that occurs to the tax revenues when large payers suddenly disappear. That won't work. But it's nice to think about.

By the way, shouldn't we take into account how much more upper-income people pay in taxes other than income? Property taxes, sales taxes, business taxes--all cost the rich much more than they do the poor. That's just obvious.

So, how is it that no one wants to encourage the rich to spend more so they can be taxed more? Instead, liberals want to disincentivize work and entrepreneurship--now THERE'S a winning strategy.

Kerry,

There are many of the rich, including the richest man on Earth, Warren Buffet, who will tell you straight up the system is rigged in their favor, and they are hardly hurting from having to pay an equal percentage to everyone else, much less a little more. And as far as taxes being a work disincentive...please. After you are set for life one time over, how much heartburn can you really have after that? Really.

And frankly the poor spend a larger percentage of their income in sales tax, because they are the least likely to be savers, and what they do have is spent on items likely to be taxed, like groceries. Where as most rich people have their vast fortunes locked up in savings, where its only being marginally taxed, or not taxed at all depending on the investment they have it in (like muni-bonds).

Kerry,

Another point. During much of America's rise to economic superiority (1936 - 1986), the tax on the rich has been far higher (mostly in the 50-70% range) than it is today (mid 30's). So you can't really argue that they were hurt all that bad, especially if you hold the belief that they are more important to driving economic prosperity, than the rest of us...something I personally don't agree with. Because I have seen countries where the rich hold all the wealth and they are piss poor countries that will probably remain that way forever. Because the haves have to much power.

Sigh.

Ahmanrah, you will just never stop being a socialist.

Oh, well. At least you're consistent.

Into the muck, then:

"There are many of the rich, including the richest man on Earth, Warren Buffet, who will tell you straight up the system is rigged in their favor, and they are hardly hurting from having to pay an equal percentage to everyone else, much less a little more."

I don't care what Warren Buffet thinks. I care what Karl Marx and Adam Smith thought, and what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama think.

"And as far as taxes being a work disincentive...please. After you are set for life one time over, how much heartburn can you really have after that? Really."

Are you trying to link this back to the health thing? Look, people who make money should be rewarded. Hard, continuous, innovative labor should be rewarded. If that reward were in the form of an absence of income tax, I would be fine with that.

"And frankly the poor spend a larger percentage of their income in sales tax, because they are the least likely to be savers..."

Whose fault is that? People who SAVE are acting as intelligent economic actors, and they SHOULD be rewarded.

"and what they do have is spent on items likely to be taxed, like groceries."

Well, I have to leave that to individual states, but here in Indiana, food isn't taxed. My experience has been that they are spending money on things like cell phones, rims, portable DVD players, and credit card interest.

"Where as most rich people have their vast fortunes locked up in savings, where its only being marginally taxed, or not taxed at all depending on the investment they have it in (like muni-bonds)."

Or they have it making more money for the economy, in investment vehicles. Or they are using it to create more business and move more product. Even Bill Gates doesn't just "save" his money.

"Another point. During much of America's rise to economic superiority (1936 - 1986), the tax on the rich has been far higher (mostly in the 50-70% range) than it is today (mid 30's). So you can't really argue that they were hurt all that bad, especially if you hold the belief that they are more important to driving economic prosperity, than the rest of us...something I personally don't agree with."

You really never WILL understand the role of principle in moral argument, will you?

Confiscatory taxation is fundamentally IMMORAL. Punishing production is IMMORAL. It is so, regardless of apparent outcome or historical events.

"Because I have seen countries where the rich hold all the wealth and they are piss poor countries that will probably remain that way forever. Because the haves have to much power."

Depending on your definitions, don't "the rich" ALWAYS hold "all the wealth?"

And just how much power should the "haves" have? Now, I will certainly agree that I would not be upset if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were reduced to, say, living on their Senatorial salaries and gave all the rest of their fortunes back to the government to pay for all the programs they want to see up and running--but I would still disapprove of forcing it, merely for the principle of the thing. If they want to voluntarily divest themselves of their evil largesse, more power to them. But don't take from the "haves" just because the "have nots" didn't manage to get to the top themselves. That's not "fair" at all.

Kerry,

I kind of look at it this way. Each of us makes a contribution, and so people can contribute more blood sweat and tears than they can money. Some can contribute their brain power and some can contribute their money. We all have to look after each other, which means we contribute where we can.

A solider doesn't generally have alot of money, but you better believe he's not only protecting his country but also the pocket books of the rich, who wouldn't have their money if the country weren't secure.

And the rich will never get rich if they don't support the laborer adequately, because they derive either directly or indirectly alot of their income from the worker bees.

So frankly while you don't see it that way, in many ways there is an equal contribution going on, between the scientist, the solider, the laborer and the business owner. But since you like to measure effort based on someone's wealth you act as if everybody but the rich are a bunch of slackers in comparison.

See how successful a rich man is who ignores the rest of society and finds a terrorist at his door he can't defend against because he wouldn't contribute to the stability and prosperity society as a whole.

Put more simply Kerry, without the 95% of America supporting the top 5%, they wouldn't have their wealth, and the day they forget that is the day our country fails. Simple as that.

Case in point - Bill Gates. He didn't get his billions from selling copies of Windows and Office to Paris Hilton's of the world, he got it from selling to the millions working as hard as anyone else. He understands, as do many of the super rich that realize that "giving back" to society generates more wealth than keeping it locked up in their bank account.

ahmanrah,

Glad you mentioned Bill Gates -- the guy who started Microsoft 30 years ago in his frickin' GARAGE.

This man is the embodiment of the American dream. He took tremendous risks to pursue his dream. If you were to tell the average American in 1978 (including me at 16) that someday we'd all be working with personal computers enabled primarily by Microsoft software and that we'd be gathering information and communicating with people all over the world via a vast electronic network that creates a virtual presence on a screen on your desktop, they would have told you you were nuts. And yet here we are.

Bill Gates is one of the people who had that vision 30 years ago and what he created has created employment, vast wealth for millions of people and, yes hundreds of millions -- billions in fact -- in taxes. And I haven't even started to talk about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation which, whether or not I agree with some of its causes, spends $1 billion-plus a year on charitable causes and probably gets 100 times (or more) bang for its buck that an idiotic government social program could even dream of.

Yes, Gates got his money from selling copies of Windows to folks like you and me but that's the American way and it is a free market exchange that resulted in benefits to both parties. What's he supposed to do, GIVE the fruits of his labors away? (Aside from the fact that he actually DOES give the fruits of his labors away.)

Steve,

On what he did, we both agree. But don't forget what he plans on spending the rest of his life doing.... giving back to the very people he knows led to his success.

He knows like I know that nobody on this planet lives in a bubble. We are all dependent on each other. And to think we don't all have to contribute in the best way we can to society as a whole is forget that nobody gets where they are without someone else's help. And Bill knows the best way to make sure more Bill Gates emerge in the future, is ensure that millions of Joe Six Packs get an education that allows them to make enough money to buy the software that makes the Bill Gates of the world rich.

You don't like the government doing this, but government makes it so you can't forget that you owe something to your society for your security and your opportunity. If remembering to contribute becomes voluntary, you get knuckle heads like Paris Hilton who don't have a clue why the peasants started rioting, or why you can't get men to risk their necks for military service.

Steve,

Here a passage straight from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that goes right to my point. I admire his realization that he is billionaire because, and only because of the hard work of millions of others who either helped him build his dream or funded it. He also is quite keenly aware that some people don't even start off with the same chance he had, and I am sure he would agree that helping them helps everybody.

Every day, more than 1,000 children die because they didn’t get a 15-cent measles vaccine. Almost 3 billion people around the world live on less than $2 per day. Here in the United States, only one-third of the students who start the ninth grade will graduate from high school with the skills they need to succeed in college and work. A disproportionate number of those who fall behind will be African American and Hispanic.

Our foundation and our partners are trying to solve these problems because we believe that all lives have equal value, no matter where they are being lived—in rich countries with high-quality health care or poor countries with almost none; in well-off suburbs with shiny new high schools or in disadvantaged communities where most kids drop out.

We also believe that from those to whom much is given, much is expected. We benefited from great schools, great health care, and a vibrant economic system. That is why we feel a tremendous responsibility to give back to society.

Besides God commanded more than once that you should give money and help to those who are less fortunate than you. The government however bureaucratic simply makes sure you don't pick and choose who you give it to. So both you and Kerry should be good listen Christians. Quite your whining and do what God has commanded of you. I dare you to call God a marxist Kerry. As I don't think his request is voluntary. Like taxes he's telling you to give to the poor.

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

"and only because of the hard work of millions of others who either helped him build his dream or funded it."

This is where you have it backwards. These people had the opportunity help him build the dream because Gates took the risk in the first place. There's a big difference between putting your vision into practice and joining in that vision once the initial risk has already been taken.

As far as the people who helped him fund it, those people have been paid back in spades.

Your Bible passage doesn't work either. Show me one passage in the Bible where it says that charity should be meted out by the government. This passage states that God's people should take care of each other and they can do a much more efficient job of it without the intervention of government.

I could give a heck of a lot more to my church if the government didn't take so much from me under the guise of taking care of others and I would bet that, just like Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation, my church does a lot more efficient job of helping people with their missions that the govt. does with its welfare.

Another distinction that you'll find in the Bible is between POOR people and SLOTHFUL people. The government doesn't distinguish the truly needy from the merely slothful like the welfare mother down the street with a house, three cars and four TVs. There are far more of these people receiving inefficient government largess than actual needy people. Hence there are more of these people -- the people that voluntarily fail to take part in the American dream -- that the Marxist Obama wants to re-distribute wealth to.

"I kind of look at it this way. Each of us makes a contribution, and so people can contribute more blood sweat and tears than they can money. Some can contribute their brain power and some can contribute their money. We all have to look after each other, which means we contribute where we can.

A solider doesn't generally have alot of money, but you better believe he's not only protecting his country but also the pocket books of the rich, who wouldn't have their money if the country weren't secure."

Since you think the more money one makes, the more taxes you should pay, then I guess, by this logic, since soldiers contribute more than anyone (blood AND treasure), they should pay the MOST taxes?

"And the rich will never get rich if they don't support the laborer adequately, because they derive either directly or indirectly alot of their income from the worker bees."

But wait. I thought you told me once that the rich don't earn their money. So how do they "get" rich? I thought they were ALREADY rich!

"So frankly while you don't see it that way, in many ways there is an equal contribution going on, between the scientist, the solider, the laborer and the business owner. But since you like to measure effort based on someone's wealth you act as if everybody but the rich are a bunch of slackers in comparison."

I don't know how you got that out of anything I ever said. I believe I said specifically that LABOR should be rewarded. In fact, I said EXACTLY this: "Look, people who make money should be rewarded. Hard, continuous, innovative labor should be rewarded."

That's not "rich" people. That's people who, as you say, "contribute." If they "contribute" enough, they may well GET rich. And that effort should not be punished with confiscatory taxation.

"See how successful a rich man is who ignores the rest of society and finds a terrorist at his door he can't defend against because he wouldn't contribute to the stability and prosperity society as a whole."

Don't rich men have bodyguards? I believe most of the super-rich (like Hollywood liberals) have their own protection and can easily "ignore the rest of society."

"Put more simply Kerry, without the 95% of America supporting the top 5%, they wouldn't have their wealth, and the day they forget that is the day our country fails. Simple as that."

95% of America is NOT supporting the top 5%. In fact, the top 10% of earners pay SEVENTY PERCENT of the taxes. The entire lower FIFTY percent of earners pay only THREE PERCENT. So ten percent are actually supporting ninety percent, not 95% supporting 5%.

"Besides God commanded more than once that you should give money and help to those who are less fortunate than you."

YOU. Not the government.

"The government however bureaucratic simply makes sure you don't pick and choose who you give it to. "

No, the government takes your money at gunpoint to give it to those who did not earn it.

"So both you and Kerry should be good listen Christians."

God did not tell us to give anything but taxes to the government. By the way, the taxes Jesus talked about were not like our taxes. There was no welfare in the Empire. He told us to give TEN PERCENT of the firstfruits (income and increase) to the LOCAL CHURCH, offerings beyond that, and ALMS to individuals in need. All of these are voluntary, because God loves a cheerful GIVER, not a grumpy person having his money TAKEN from him.

"Quite your whining and do what God has commanded of you."

I do that every week. I also (like most Christians, and very few "others") give of my time and talents. This morning I spent time handing out food in the food ministry, for example. And this week, I have a board meeting to continue working on the tax status of our Hispanic ministry. Christians give as God commands, but nowhere does God command that taxes be used in place of private charity.

"I dare you to call God a marxist."

No, thanks. I'll leave that to Reverend Wright.

"As I don't think his request is voluntary."

That's because you don't know a blessed thing about God.

"Like taxes he's telling you to give to the poor."

Taxes and giving are vastly different things. Taxes were something Christians were required to give up to the tax collector, extracted from them at the whim of the tax collector. Instead of telling his people not to pay taxes, Jesus demonstrated that God would always provide the money for the taxes.

"Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks."

And we do. But the government is not anyone's "brother." (By the way, only the people of God are Biblically "brothers." So, by your reckoning, only Christians should get welfare.)

"Another distinction that you'll find in the Bible is between POOR people and SLOTHFUL people."

I'll second that:

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10.)

"The government doesn't distinguish the truly needy from the merely slothful like the welfare mother down the street with a house, three cars and four TVs. There are far more of these people receiving inefficient government largess than actual needy people. Hence there are more of these people -- the people that voluntarily fail to take part in the American dream -- that the Marxist Obama wants to re-distribute wealth to."

Besides, charity should come with love, out of the love of God. The government--even the government run by the New Hope Obama--can't love anyone.

Steve,

Churchs and Bill Gates may be more efficient at spending charity, but I seriously doubt they are as good at getting people to fulfill their obligation to society. This is true of any situation that involves voluntary obligations and mandatory obligations. Far fewer people will do something if its voluntary than if its not. That is human nature.

And since 40 percent of church goers are pretty half-assed about it, I'd say your charitable contributors are even less.

That is the role government serves (ie to enforce obligations), and since nobody has come up with a better mechanism to get the job done in the entire history of mankind, I'd say its the best, no matter how in-efficient it is in reality.

Steve,

And by the way you can donate charitable giving on your taxes, so you have even less of an excuse.

deduct not donate.

"Far fewer people will do something if its voluntary than if its not. That is human nature."

But if it's not voluntary, it's not charitable. Having your money taken from you is theft. Giving it freely is our Christian obligation. If we don't do it willingly, we're not doing it at all.

"That is the role government serves (ie to enforce obligations)..."

Oddly enough, the Constitution doesn't say a word about the "obligations" of the citizenry. It is not the charge of the government to "enforce obligations." It is the job of the government to protect its people, and to ENABLE them to exercise their own, God-given, unalienable RIGHTS.

"...and since nobody has come up with a better mechanism to get the job done in the entire history of mankind..."

What a ridiculously inaccurate statement. Virtually everything is more efficient at meeting needs than the government. I'll tell you what government is really "efficient" at, though--creating faceless, heartless bureaucracies that don't care about individual cases.

"I'd say its the best, no matter how in-efficient it is in reality."

Boy, isn't THAT the ultimate statement of the liberal love for statism? "Against ALL evidence, I believe in the cause, anyway."

Look, ahmanrah, you may not know it, but this is the closest thing to a principle you have yet demonstrated. You don't love statism because it is efficient--you just love it because you believe it is the RIGHT way to rule over the people.

You worship the state. Not the Constitution. Not America. Not any transcendent quality thereof. It wouldn't matter if you were in the US, or the Dominican Republic, or Mars. Wherever there is a heartless government bureaucracy, there your heart is, also.

"And by the way you can donate charitable giving on your taxes, so you have even less of an excuse."

You make the announcement a bit late to do anyone any good this year, but you are right. Of course, it's an above-the-line deduction, so for many people, it's made redundant by the mortgage deduction, but for those who need it, there it is. It would be better if it were available to non-itemizers, since so many of them are tithers (invariably the poor give more than the rich, percentage-wise, and so it has ever been). But I'm not complaining; I'm just saying it's not as big a motivation as you might think. (In fact, I doubt most tithers care much about that, in the long run. It's not about the Benjamins. It's about the disciples.)

Oddly enough, the Constitution doesn't say a word about the "obligations" of the citizenry. It is not the charge of the government to "enforce obligations." It is the job of the government to protect its people, and to ENABLE them to exercise their own, God-given, unalienable RIGHTS.

Well Kerry its sort of implied, because the government can't protect people, or enable them without money. It can't do anything for anyone without funding. That's just life.

"Well Kerry its sort of implied, because the government can't protect people, or enable them without money. It can't do anything for anyone without funding. That's just life."

But you weren't talking about money. You were trying to claim that the government can act as the enforcer of our Christian obligation to take care of the less fortunate. This is the context in which you made the claim:

"Churchs and Bill Gates may be more efficient at spending charity, but I seriously doubt they are as good at getting people to fulfill their obligation to society. This is true of any situation that involves voluntary obligations and mandatory obligations. Far fewer people will do something if its voluntary than if its not. That is human nature.

And since 40 percent of church goers are pretty half-assed about it, I'd say your charitable contributors are even less.

That is the role government serves (ie to enforce obligations), and since nobody has come up with a better mechanism to get the job done in the entire history of mankind, I'd say its the best, no matter how in-efficient it is in reality."

If you actually meant it is the government's role to collect taxes, you should have said so.

I'm not saying they shouldn't collect taxes. I'm saying the government should not be the primary arbiter of charity. You evidently think it should.

No I said the government is better at collecting money for the poor, which God may have asked for politely from his flock, but its hardly voluntary if he is going to judge you for not doing it later.

What government is inefficient at is getting it cost effectively to the appropriate people that need it most. And since government is a comglomeration of a bunch of different and competing interests it will never be by design the most efficient at its job...but its still the best game going. No church on earth matches the depth, geographic reach, or the consistency over time of what the government can collect and distribute to the poor or needy in a time of need.

That is why governments, are the only ones that have the resources to bail out whole states and financial markets in the time of natural disasters.

"No I said the government is better at collecting money for the poor..."

No, it's not. It just has the coercive power of the state to take money from people.

"...which God may have asked for politely from his flock, but its hardly voluntary if he is going to judge you for not doing it later."

News flash: He's going to judge you for everything later. Every act, every idle work. Everything. The only way out is Jesus.

Aside from that, if it's NOT given cheerfully, it doesn't count. In the calculus of Heaven, an unwilling heart=a rebellious heart=witchcraft=Hell.

"What government is inefficient at is--"

Everything.

"...getting it cost effectively to the appropriate people that need it most."

Therefore it is useless.

"And since government is a comglomeration of a bunch of different and competing interests.."

That is not a definition of "government" I ever heard. Where did you get it?

"it will never be by design the most efficient at its job...but its still the best game going."

How in the world can the LEAST efficient ANYTHING be the BEST anything?

"No church on earth matches the depth, geographic reach, or the consistency over time of what the government can collect and distribute to the poor or needy in a time of need."

That's hysterical. Perhaps you've heard of a little mud hut in Italy called the CATHOLIC CHURCH? Or perhaps you were unaware that the church INVENTED charity--not the government. Government as a benevolent and socially conscious institution is actually a pretty modern invention. Also, rare in global terms. Most governments around the world, to this day, are generally aimed at self-perpetuation and not much else.

"That is why governments, are the only ones that have the resources to bail out whole states and financial markets in the time of natural disasters."

No, they don't. They just mitigate loss. New Orleans (a city, not even a whole state) was not "saved" by the government, but by private individuals and communities acting out of charitable impulse.

"No I said the government is better at collecting money for the poor..."

No, it's not. It just has the coercive power of the state to take money from people.

Sure it is. Tell me any church on Earth that has the same budget as the United States? There are more than 300 million Catholics, but the Vatican doesn't have that kind of money. Case closed.

How in the world can the LEAST efficient ANYTHING be the BEST anything?

I have already answered this. The government is extremely efficient at getting people to pay up, compared to church's because if you leave it up to most people to volunteer to do anything, they won't do it. The government is also far better at getting resources at distributing to large groups of people consistently, for a long time. No church has the staying power, consistency or reach to do what the federal government does. That is why it can and never will be a replacement for welfare. Because while a bunch of little church do do alot of charity work, none of them talks to each other, and so there is no over arching organization that knows whether everybody everywhere is getting the equal "charitable coverage". Its all piece mill...and a true welfare system for the poor can't be piece mill.

So until a church can ensure there is equal charitable coverage everywhere, year in and year out, they aren't doing a better job than the federal government.

"Sure it is. Tell me any church on Earth that has the same budget as the United States?"

So, we're talking ONLY about the United States government? Because the Catholic church has about 15 billion dollars, that bankers are willing to admit to, despite the fact that exact numbers are not available.

"There are more than 300 million Catholics, but the Vatican doesn't have that kind of money."

How do you know? Nobody really knows the net worth of the Holy See, because it is a noncommercial, voluntarily funded economy.

"Case closed."

Not really.

""How in the world can the LEAST efficient ANYTHING be the BEST anything?""

"I have already answered this. The government is extremely efficient at getting people to pay up, compared to church's because if you leave it up to most people to volunteer to do anything, they won't do it. The government is also far better at getting resources at distributing to large groups of people consistently, for a long time. No church has the staying power, consistency or reach to do what the federal government does. That is why it can and never will be a replacement for welfare. Because while a bunch of little church do do alot of charity work, none of them talks to each other, and so there is no over arching organization that knows whether everybody everywhere is getting the equal "charitable coverage". Its all piece mill...and a true welfare system for the poor can't be piece mill."

I believe you mean "piecemeal."

And that's the way God, the One who invented charity, designed it to be. Trusting in Him is the test of your faith. He knows where the resources are, and He will get them where they need to go. No government can beat Him at that game.

Sometimes, instead of more resources, we actually need a lesson in managing with less. Not a message Americans really like to hear--especially those who consider themselves "poor"--but a valuable one, nonetheless.

"So until a church can ensure there is equal charitable coverage everywhere, year in and year out, they aren't doing a better job than the federal government."

Nothing is equally distributed. And it's not meant to be. Even in your "best" government system, distribution is wildly unequal. For example, in Indiana, you can't get more than $380/week for unemployment, no matter how much you made. Other states don't have a cap.

Different localities have different rules for how they do "charity," just as different churches do. For example, the state has different qualifications than the federal government, and the township trustee may have different procedures and decision points, as well.

The point here is that there is no "equal charitable coverage everywhere," nor should there be.

The point here is that there is no "equal charitable coverage everywhere," nor should there be.

And why is that, why should one poor guy get less than another poor guy in an equal situation?

I'll give you a perfect example of what I am talking about. Where I live there is alot of charity that goes on. But frankly most of the charity $$$ come from those who can least afford it, and go to the people who don't really need it. Case in point. One of the major sources of charitable funding in Alaska is pull-tabs. I'd say 50+ percent of the people that play pulltabs are Native Americans, who really shouldn't be spending what little money they do get on gambling, but that is a social problem that can only be dealt with over time. But that isn't the entire part of the problem. The other side of the coin, is that most of the organizations that run pull-tab stores are white. And so these organizations take the money they get, and instead of spending the money on those that really need charity, they spend the money on activities in their on social group - little league, ice hockey, BMX, auto racing...activities that the poor who are the primary funders of it can't hardly afford.

Some will say well if the Natives have a problem with that, they shouldn't play pulltabs, well frankly that is a copout, because we as a society know they have a problem, and despite our knowledge we continue to take advantage of it.

The same goes for charity in general. People have a whole bunch of terms for charity, and what charity should go to, but frankly someone needs to put their foot down and set a priority. As long as there are people starving out there, no church charity can call its self better than the government, when the governments goal is to take care of basic needs FIRST (no matter how ineffient), rather than things like youth sports, etc.

And then their is the situation where charities may exist to help the poor in some cities, but not others. Church charities will never be a replacement for states and the federal government as long as there are gaps in where they cover. And since church's don't have a cohesive communication system, entire sections of this country could go without any help for years, simply because nobody wants to be "charitable them", and its unaccepted for the "deserving poor" should go without assistance based on a community willingness or unwillingness to give.

"And why is that, why should one poor guy get less than another poor guy in an equal situation?"

Because that's life.

"I'll give you a perfect example of what I am talking about. Where I live there is alot of charity that goes on. But frankly most of the charity $$$ come from those who can least afford it, and go to the people who don't really need it. Case in point. One of the major sources of charitable funding in Alaska is pull-tabs. I'd say 50+ percent of the people that play pulltabs are Native Americans, who really shouldn't be spending what little money they do get on gambling, but that is a social problem that can only be dealt with over time. But that isn't the entire part of the problem. The other side of the coin, is that most of the organizations that run pull-tab stores are white. And so these organizations take the money they get, and instead of spending the money on those that really need charity, they spend the money on activities in their on social group - little league, ice hockey, BMX, auto racing...activities that the poor who are the primary funders of it can't hardly afford."

I'm sorry, but pulltabs--whatever the money is intended for--is gambling, not charity. Charity is supernaturally blessed. Gambling is contrary to the will of God, and those who depend on it for their sustenance will not be satisfied. Moreover, charity is given without expectation of thanks or reward--not in expectation of profit.

"Some will say well if the Natives have a problem with that, they shouldn't play pulltabs, well frankly that is a copout, because we as a society know they have a problem, and despite our knowledge we continue to take advantage of it."

But it's your precious "government" that CREATED the social problems that Native Americans live with today, that pumped them full of alcohol and cigarettes, and that continues to destroy their souls by dangling the offer of untold riches procured through gambling.

Nice job, government. Take a whole people and turn them into a dependent mess. Thanks loads. I can't wait to turn over everyone's health care to YOU. (!)

"The same goes for charity in general. People have a whole bunch of terms for charity, and what charity should go to, but frankly someone needs to put their foot down and set a priority."

You, maybe?

"As long as there are people starving out there, no church charity can call its self better than the government, when the governments goal is to take care of basic needs FIRST (no matter how ineffient), rather than things like youth sports, etc."

People pull this nonsense all the time, and I'm tired of it. Find me twenty people in the United States of America who have genuinely STARVED to death who were not deliberately murdered, in--oh, let's say the past ten years. Please.

"And then their is the situation where charities may exist to help the poor in some cities, but not others."

Again, that's life. When someone sees the need, a solution will be found. That's how charity works. Not by governmental fiat.

"Church charities will never be a replacement for states and the federal government as long as there are gaps in where they cover."

You have this historically backwards. In fact, government acted as a replacement for religious charities who, when the government began doing their jobs, quit doing them as much. It is the duty of the church to take care of those less fortunate. The government should be nothing more than an emergency back-up system.

And we've already dealt with the FACT that coverage differs regionally even within governmental programs, so what's your point?

"And since church's don't have a cohesive communication system, entire sections of this country could go without any help for years, simply because nobody wants to be "charitable them", and its unaccepted for the "deserving poor" should go without assistance based on a community willingness or unwillingness to give."

That's nonsense. Where is this vast wasteland of unchurched, uncharitable America? By the way, the last part of that sentence doesn't make any sense. Care to try it again?