"A Republic ma'am, if you can keep it." Ben Franklin

Not all citizens of America are also citizens of the Kingdom of God and it is only the citizens of God's Kingdom, as His citizens and according to His Word, provide charity to the poor. We are not to mandate that charity to non-citizens, for that is not freedom, but coercion and slavery.

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others." --Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The economic welfare of all our people must ultimately stem not from government programs, but from the wealth created by a vigorous private sector." --Ronald Reagan

Not Yours To Give by Mark Alexander
 
“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, Primary author of the Constitution
 
…According to the Register of Debates for the House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session on April 2, 1828, Davy Crocket stood to challenge the constitutionality of one of the earliest welfare spending bills, a benevolence distribution to the family of a military officer after his death. While the exact text of his speech was not transcribed (not the practice in those years), the spirit of his words in regard to those proceedings was captured in an 1867 Harper's Magazine article entitled "Not yours to give" by Edward Ellis.
 
According to Ellis, Crockett objected to the expenditure: "Mr. Speaker; I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. 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. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
 
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

See also: SOCKDOLAGER - A  TRUE STORY ABOUT DAVY CROCKETT  This is a newspaper reporter's captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with ...Davy Crockett. By Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter and Coates, 1884)

Is this position "mean spirited" as the "progressives" would have you believe?

Where do you draw the line? By what means would you determine who gets what from the government? What elected official (politician) will have the power to say what possessions are deemed a "need" vs. comfort or convenience?
 
Was Jesus mean spirited when He said: “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.”  (Luke 9:60) or “For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8) when asked: “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” (John 12:5)
 
Did Jesus force anyone to give? He doesn’t force people to enter the Kingdom of God. Choice equals freedom. Liberty from God. Government is not God, although "We the sheeple" seem to want it that way. "We the people" do not want government to mandate forced charity through taxation. It goes completely against the Constitution and violates the liberty that comes from God. Taxation also inhibits charity as you also pointed out by mandating unconstitutional regulations.
 
"Progressives" have a politically correct dictionary and the words Boundaries, Maturity, Discipline, Responsibility, Commitment, Integrity are now obsolete.  Socialism is akin to slavery. Capitalism is letting a free market naturally provide the needs and wants where each individual freely chooses to give and take or just take.
 
Socialism did not make America the wealthiest nation that gives more than any other nation, especially when tragedy occurs. If not for taxation World Mission Evangelism, Samaritans Purse, and others would be receiving more donations, not to mention local charities and personal charity.
 
I do though contend, if preachers preached the Word of God vs. what they believe they need to preach, then we would see an increase. (1 Cor. 3) It is not the preacher’s call to convict and convince, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. The preacher’s work is to preach the Word of God which is the basis for the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 4:17)

What Our Constitution Permits By Walter E. Williams - Here's the House of Representatives new rule: "A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution." Unless a congressional bill or resolution meets this requirement, it cannot be introduced. If the House of Representatives had the courage to follow through on this rule, their ability to spend and confer legislative favors would be virtually eliminated. Also, if the rule were to be applied to existing law, they'd wind up repealing at least two-thirds to three-quarters of congressional spending.

You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying: "Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending? What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners? Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

In 1854, President Franklin Piece vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Madison added, "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."
John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.

Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.  

Further references:

• Missing: $400 Purse Holding $800 Cash, Plus Food Stamp Cards By John Hayward HumanEvents.com A traveling friend sent me an item clipped from a Georgia newspaper that reads, in its entirety: A woman said she noticed her purse missing from her car just before 5 P.M. Sunday. The car was parked at her residence on Hornet Drive. The woman said the car had been locked, and the purse was in the back seat. The purse was valued at $400, her wallet was valued at $200, and she said there was $800 cash in the purse, according to the police report. Also missing were the woman’s food stamp cards.
• How Government Monetary Policies Hurt the Poor and Turn them Into Slaves of the State by Gary DeMar - The Bible maintains that inflation has its greatest effects on widows and orphans: “Your silver has become dross, your drink diluted with water. Your rulers are rebels, and companions of thieves; every one loves a bribe, and chases after rewards. They do not defend the orphan, nor does the widow’s plea come before them” (Isaiah 1:22–23). The very policies instituted by politicians to help the poor created the massive debt that now has turned on the poor and made them even more dependent upon government assistance. To deliver the promised programs of prosperity, the federal government took our nation off the gold standard and inflated the dollar with more and more paper “currency,” since the gold standard prohibited our political leaders from tampering with the money supply. When the official protector of weights and measures, the civil magistrate, disregards commandments regarding sound money, what stops the general populace from gouging the poor as well?
• How America Spends Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty -- and Fails Total welfare spending in constant 2011 dollars (including state and local funds) has risen from $256 billion in 1965 to $908 billion today... ...The answer to this gross inefficiency is that programs should not focus on making poverty more comfortable. Instead, they should focus on helping the poor to climb their way out of poverty. To this end, they should emphasize: Education -- high school dropouts make significantly less money and are much more likely to live in poverty. Not having children out of wedlock -- roughly 63 percent of all poor children reside in single-parent families. Sticking to a job -- only 2.6 percent of full-time workers and 15 percent of part-time workers are poor. Source: Michael Tanner, "The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty -- and Fail," Cato Institute, April 11, 2012. For text: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
• The Left’s Presumption of Superiority By David L. Goetsch - After listening to my snooty colleague repeatedly refer to business majors as “baby capitalists” and engineering majors as “glorified auto mechanics,” I interrupted and asked him two questions: 1) What is wrong with capitalists and auto mechanics? and 2) Next time your car breaks down, why don’t you call a philosopher?  The audience enjoyed the intended humor in my questions and laughed accordingly.  But my colleague was greatly offended that someone would dare question his obvious superiority.  He responded that I was “stupid” and stomped off the stage in a huff. This debate took place in an academic environment where righteous indignation permeates the very bricks and mortar.  College professors and their liberal counterparts outside of the academy are what Thomas Sowell once referred to as the “perpetually indignant.”  When liberals cannot rebut conservative ideas with logic or reason, they simply brush them aside and call them “stupid” or “unworthy.” When a conservative gets under their skin with an argument based on those inconvenient little things known as facts, liberals quickly resort to name calling.  For example, make a cogent, well-reasoned argument against any of President Obama’s misguided economic policies and see how long it takes before liberals call you a “racist.”
• Is Liberalism Immoral? Why we must save the American work ethic. By Mona Charen - The best advocates are often converts. So it is with Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks has an important forthcoming book, The Road to Freedom, which I’ll discuss in a minute, but it’s worth pausing over the unusual career of Brooks himself, because it says much about happiness, free enterprise, and the unique American spirit that Brooks has spent the last decade attempting to save. The son of two liberal college professors, Brooks writes that when he was growing up in Seattle, “No one in my world voted for Ronald Reagan. I had no friends or family who worked in business. I believed what most everybody in my world assumed to be true: that capitalism was a bit of a sham to benefit rich people, and the best way to get a better, fairer country was to raise taxes, increase government services, and redistribute more income.”
• Liberal Ignorance and the Entitlement Mentality by David L. Goetsch - By promoting an entitlement mentality, liberals in Congress and the White House are sowing the seeds of America’s destruction.  Because of an ever-growing list of social programs, subsidies, and entitlements, more than half of all Americans now look to the government for at least a portion of their sustenance.  As a result, many American’s have come to view government as the solution to their problems rather than the cause of them.  The principles of limited government that undergirded Ronald Reagan’s Republican Revolution are being steadily undermined by the seductive allure of government handouts. This dangerously misguided trend promotes an entitlement mentality in a country that has long been known for its positive work ethic.  The entitlement mentality, in turn, encourages the growth of government and the cycle continues, creating a downward spiral toward disaster. America became an economic superpower not by accident, chance, or luck but because it was established with a free-market economy and people who thrived in an environment of economic freedom.  These two pillars of America’s economic success—a free-market economy and economic freedom—hold the key for reversing America’s descent into insolvency.
• All You Need Is Gov: A Response to Obama's "Biblical" Economics By Wesley Gant - First, substituting taxes for charity is like switching apples for oranges. The taking of one's property to relieve someone else's discomfort has significant implications for how we view property rights in the first place. Do such rights exist, as the Declaration of Independence says? If so, do they come from God? The right to one's property is sacred because it is tied to our natural responsibilities as decision makers and stewards of our resources. Like the parable, God grants us gifts and talents, and it is up to us to make them produce fruit and share it voluntarily as we are moved to do so. But let us assume that taking property through the vehicle of pseudo-democratic legislation is fair game in certain conditions (after all, I may be tempted to steal if it meant I could save someone's life). It is then necessary to ask whether there is any point at which this justification is lost. I might steal to save a life, but would I steal to satisfy a less urgent need, like cleaner water or minor medical care? What about healthy food, exercise and education? We are currently doing all of these. But at what point do we say "no," and insist that individuals take responsibility for their advancement and comfort? That is the question up for debate. I cannot conceive of what tax rate Jesus Christ himself would be calling for. There is, of course, the standard 10 percent tithe, but would he raise that to 50 or 75 on wealthier Christians? He is not silent on the issue—when asked his thoughts on taxation his reply was to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." It turns out, Jesus is not concerned with tax rates; he is concerned with that which is God's—our hearts, where government cannot go. In God's design, helping one's neighbor is perhaps more a matter of personal sacrifice than welfare assistance. The miracle is not that someone is a degree more comfortable, but that someone gave of himself or herself willingly. The IRS is no substitute for a generous soul, but the more we place social welfare on the shoulders of the state, the more we abdicate one of our most sacred responsibilities.
• Obama Calls It Fairness. The GOP Calls It Class Warfare. Scripture Calls It Envy By Doug Giles - Obama, in his State of the Union address and during his initial five-state, multi-million dollar taxpayer funded re-election jaunt has stated repeatedly that his platform and policies are not about class warfare, which means, of course, that his ticket is all about class warfare—or “fairness,” as he likes to call it … or as the Scripture labels it, envy.
• Pinning the Tail on the Donkeys By Burt Prelutsky - In the case of Leftists, if you point out that socialism doesn't work any better in Wisconsin or Ohio than it did in the Soviet Union or does in Greece, they argue that it simply has never been done correctly. In the wake of such bloody failures as China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, only a certifiable lunatic would even consider defending socialism on such shaky ground. However, when it comes to unequivocal devotion to failed attempts at social engineering, those on the Left could give collies and cocker spaniels lessons in blind loyalty. If I haven't yet convinced you that those who inhabit the ranks of the Left are dangerously self-righteous and unbelievably stupid, consider that they not only elected Barney Frank to Congress, but then kept doing it 15 more times. Consider, too, that they hold the unholy likes of Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg, in high regard. Finally, never forget that one of the intellectual heroines of the Left, Susan Sontag, once declared, 'The white race is the cancer of human history,' and, as usual, she was being deadly serious; and that Barack Obama, after once acknowledging that America was the greatest nation on the face of the earth -- no doubt with his fingers crossed behind his back -- went on to announce that, as president, he intended to radically transform it!
• Margaret Thatcher Debunks the Leftist Agenda on Income Equality By Daniel J. Mitchell - he statists are making a big issue out of income inequality, hoping to convince ordinary Americans that redistribution is their only hope for a better life. I’ve explained with a pizza analogy that this is horribly misguided because it falsely assumes the economy is a fixed pie. Simply stated, it doesn’t make sense – or help anybody – if inequality is reduced by policies that hurt everyone, but happen to hurt upper-income people more than lower-income people. Moreover, redistribution tends to create a “poverty trap” as people get seduced by dependency. That’s why I’ve argued that economic growth is the best way of helping the less fortunate. But I have to admit that Margaret Thatcher does a much better job of eviscerating the left’s agenda on this issue. While it’s inspiring to watch Thatcher in action, it’s also painful to realize that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates seems generally incapable of making similar arguments. Can you imagine, for instance, Mitt Romney making these remarks? Last but not least, Thatcher’s remarks remind me about Churchill’s famous quote, which is very appropriate for this discussion. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. And if you want real-world examples, look at this chart comparing North Korea and South Korea, or this chart comparing Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela. Now ask yourself a simple question: Which societies have generated more prosperity and higher living standards for ordinary people?
• Government Charity Isn't Charity By Hadley Heath - Consider that right now, there are more than 70 federal means-tested welfare programs. If these programs are supposed to lift Americans out of poverty, they are failing. In 2010, there were 49 million Americans categorized as impoverished, and this number is going up. One problem is that government is simply inefficient. If we were to divide the roughly $950 billion spent on anti-poverty programs in 2011 by the 49 million Americans who are poor, we'd have nearly $19,400 per person. That's $77,600 for a family of four, which would clearly surpass the federal poverty line ($22,350 for a family of four). Of course, instead of going directly to the poor, government money passes through the pipeline of federal, state and local-level bureaucrats paid to administer welfare programs. These additional costs mean fewer resources go to the people in need. ...The biggest difference between charity and the welfare state isn't efficiency or costs: The biggest difference is the holistic approach private charities can take to bettering the lives of individuals.
• Walter E. Williams - If a person without health insurance finds himself in need of costly medical care, let's investigate just how might that care be provided. There are not too many of us who'd suggest that we get the money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That being the case, if a medically indigent person receives medical treatment, it must be provided by people. There are several possible methods to deliver the services. One way is for people to make voluntary contributions or for medical practitioners to simply treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I find both methods praiseworthy, laudable and, above all, moral. Another way to provide those services is for Congress to use its power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. ... I'd personally find such a method of providing medical services offensive and immoral, simply because I find the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another, what amounts to slavery, in violation of all that is decent. ... I share James Madison's vision, articulated when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees in 1794. Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, '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,' adding later that 'charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.' This vision of morality, I'm afraid, is repulsive to most Americans.
• Sesame Street Muppet Pitches Government Dependence: Free Food at School By Eric Scheiner - December 9, 2011 (CNSNews.com) – A “food insecure” Muppet is helping to promote a national “Food for Thought” campaign that teaches poor families to seek out nutritious food and to eat on the taxpayers’ tab.
• Christian giving: Family first --- Christian giving: Saints, then strangers --- Christian giving: Concluding principles By Dan Popp
• Why Is Class Hatred Morally Superior to Race Hatred? By Dennis Prager - Non-leftists who cherish the American value of liberty over the left-wing value of socioeconomic equality, as well as those who adhere to Judeo-Christian values, do not regard the existence of economic classes as inherently morally problematic. If the poor are treated equally before the law, are given the chance and the liberty to raise their socioeconomic status and have their basic material needs met, the gap between rich and poor is not a major moral problem. Of course, if the rich got rich through deceitful or violent means, they must be prosecuted. But America is a place where the way in which 'poor' is defined renders most poor Americans materially equivalent to much of Europe's middle class. America is also a place where the rich by and large legally acquired their wealth through hard work and entrepreneurial enterprise. So here, the existence of rich and poor is not a problem that demands governmental action.
• “Share Your Profits” And “Sue Your Boss” Are Not Job Growth Strategies by Austin Hill - Think back a long time ago. Stretch your mind, and go all the way back to January 21st, 2011. On that day, the President of the United States spoke to an audience at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and said, among other things: "We're going back to Thomas Edison's principles… We're going to build stuff and invent stuff..(thunderous applause)." Yes, President Barack Obama said that. And never mind that one of Thomas Edison’s most profound inventions, the light bulb, is about to be outlawed by the Obama Administration. In a rather uncharacteristic moment of enthusiasm and support of for-profit American enterprise, the President made an appeal to American ingenuity and ambition and seemed to conclude that right now we need more of both. But fast-forward a bit to last Monday, February 7th. That’s when the President addressed an audience of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (again) and had a rather different attitude towards American success. Speaking of the improving balance sheets at many American companies, President Obama stated: “The benefits can’t just translate into greater bonuses and profits for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line…” “Share the profits” in 2011 sounds eerily like “spread the wealth around,” circa 2008. In both cases, the President was speaking the language of economic collectivism – “socialism” being the more loosely defined term of choice for this type of rhetoric – and it should be disturbing to every American.
• Charity In America by Harris R. Sherline - Americans are the most charitable people on earth. This is not just some self-serving assessment. It has been repeatedly demonstrated over time, not only by our response to the many disasters that occur in other parts of the world, but also by the extent of charitable giving by both individual Americans and institutions alike. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks examined charitable giving in America and found, among other things, that conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives. ...However, secular liberals are 90% more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income (up from 7% last year).
• In her first State of the State address, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said that "as government expands, liberty contracts" and that governemnt was "never intended to be all things to all people."
• How Government Helpfulness Breeds Dependency by Robert Weissberg - To be blunt, government is infantilizing its own people, creating a nation of well-dressed, well-spoken beggars seeking endless handouts. It is thus futile to place all the blame on free-spending elected officials; they are rationally satisfying entitlement addicted constituents, though to be sure, government helped manufacture this entitlement addiction.
• Free Isn't Freedom - Handouts to the Healthy Only Hurt by Ralph Peters ...My mother’s family first enjoyed indoor plumbing when the boys came home from the Second World War with money in hand, and a family of twelve had crammed into a two-bedroom house—but no one begged for anything, not ever. You went hungry first. Then came the well-intentioned, disastrous programs of The Great Society. By the end of the 1960s, the miner’s pride lay shattered and the dream of the able-bodied blue-collar worker back home was to qualify for “total disability,” while retaining sufficient health to do some illicit work on the side (for cash payment) to supplement the beer budget. Lawsuits came into fashion, too. The Great Society’s message was “You’re entitled.” It was the most-seductive, most-destructive and most-pernicious message our government had sent since the Dred Scott case prolonged slavery. Instead of giving us a more-equitable society, it destroyed the urban-black family; erected dependency walls around ghettos, barrios and rust-belt company towns; vanquished the blue-collar work ethic in innumerable communities; and put us on the road to our present state of whining, demanding, parasitic, morbid obesity. Congratulations. Again and again across the decades, I witnessed the narcotic, enslaving effects of a government-provided “free lunch” for able adults: Members of my own family wondered who they could sue for imagined injuries; obese military wives paralyzed health clinics by treating them as social hubs—dragging in their children for every minor affliction, since there was no cost to do so (a mere five-dollar-per-visit fee would have cleaned out those waiting rooms rapidly); and working-age folks back home employed their considerable reserves of ingenuity to beat the system any way they could.   In the historical blink of an eye, we went from a self-reliant and spirited society to a nation of cattle satisfied with a government-filled trough.
• Promises and Riots By Thomas Sowell - Nothing is easier for politicians than to play Santa Claus by promising benefits, without mentioning the costs -- or lying about the costs and leaving it to future governments to figure out what to do when the money runs out. In the United States, the biggest and longest-running scam of this sort is Social Security. Fulfilling all the promises that were made, as commitments in the law, would cost more money than Social Security has ever had. ... All the incentives are for politicians to do what they have done, namely to promise benefits without raising enough taxes to pay for them. That way, it looks like you are getting something for nothing. When crunch time comes and politicians are either going to have to tell people the truth or raise taxes, the almost inevitable choice is to raise taxes. If the people think they are already taxed too much, then the taxes can be raised only for people designated as 'the rich.' If 'the rich' object, then demagogues can denounce them for their selfishness and 'greed' for objecting to turning over ever-growing amounts of what they have earned to politicians. ... The scams inherent in welfare states are not only economically counterproductive, they turn group against group, straining the ties that hold a society together.
• Why Socialism Always Results in Tyrannical Rule
• Is Socialism Christian?
• Leftists, Progressives and Socialists
• Where Best To Be Poor
• "Enough Money" …But that is wholly different from having politicians make such decisions for other people. Politicians who take on that role stifle economic progress and drain away other people's money, in order to hand out goodies that will help get themselves re-elected. Some people call that "social justice," even when it is anti-social politics.
• Sunday School for Socialists …There are MANY reasons why using these verses to support government-enforced wealth redistribution (i.e. socialism) is really a gross misapplication of scripture.  I don’t quite have time to draft the 50-page fully-footnoted essay that is required for this, but I’ll attempt a few critical points at least: …
• Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more? It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election. Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money." … And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government. "You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
• The Tale of Two Washingtons – and the Myth of ‘Raising Taxes on the Rich’ by Catherine Snow - Everyone has likely heard of the folklore hero Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men, renowned for redistributing wealth by “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.” As lawmakers return to Washington, D.C., next week, conservatives are not only pointing to Tuesday’s election as a sound rejection of the Democrats’ wealth redistribution strategies, but also to a defeated “wealth redistribution” ballot measure in liberal Washington state.
• Christian Giving Holds Steady During Recession, Up For Adoption, Orphan Care (Nov. 2010) The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) announced Tuesday that charitable contributions to its members on average varied little over the past two years.
• Conservatives more charitable than liberal Scrooges TONY LEE — While liberals often want to take other people's money and spend it the way they think is proper, liberals are, on the whole, hypocritically far less generous with their money than conservatives that they demonize are... (more)

Heritage’s Ryan Messmore on Seeking Social Justice by Catherine Snow - Ryan Messmore, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation, is dedicated to examining how religious charity affects public policy – and politics. Messmore challenges the liberal vision of “social justice,” which says that government is the solution for all societal ails.  And, his efforts are helping reframe the public debate – and change hearts and minds in the process.

...A lot that is being told to college students and young people today – who are passionate about serving people in need – is a narrative about:
The “inequality” between the rich and the poor, to care for somebody who is poor is to figure out how to redistribute money from those who have it to those who don’t, the government is the means that is often presented as the most effective way to do that. A lot of young people that I’ve talked to have gained the sense that to care about those in poverty – and from a position of faith – means I need to advocate for government redistribution of wealth. They equate serving people in need with almost a Marxist approach to economics, using the government as the main mechanism. ...We feel that the best way to restore broken relationships is through face-to-face interaction –the types of relationships that are fostered through families, churches, and nonprofit organizations, rather than impersonal government.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Learn more about “Seek Social Justice: Transforming Lives In Need.”
WATCH a trailer for a “Seek Social Justice” study group lesson.
Read, “Obama’s Proposal to Reduce Charitable Deductions Would Hurt Civil Society, Expand Government.”
Read, “Seeking Clarity Amidst Confusion About Social Justice.”
Read, “Civil Society Does What Big Government Can’t.”
Read, “Obama’s Faith-Based Office Shouldn’t Put So Much Faith in Government.” 

“A Republic ma’am, if you can keep it” Ben Franklin ( Republic vs. Democracy)
 
This is not 1776, when America was permeated with Biblical moral virtue. America is currently permeated with "progressive political correctness," which requires relinquishing Biblical moral virtue. In order to restore the Republic as our Christian Founders intended, requires the core Biblical foundation which was the motivating factor in how America's Founders confronted EVERY issue, whether social, fiscal, national, and international.
 
In order to restore the "American Way of Life" for our descendants, American citizens, those who are also citizens of the Kingdom of God, must begin to honor and obey their Lord's call to become the Salt & Light they are called to be as “ambassadors” for their King, by preaching not only John 3:16, but what Jesus admonished in the same breath through verse 21. Many are also only “preaching” 1 Timothy 2 but not 2 Timothy 4.
 
A Republic vs. Marxism is a free market vs. socialism. If you still believe government should be our daddy or god then consider what Samuel Adams and James Madison said:

Samuel Adams: "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom...crouch down and lick the hands, which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."

The only perfect "kingdom" is the Kingdom of God because He is a God of love, with no deceit in Him, but also a God righteousness and judgment, yet with mercy and grace everlasting.
 
There is, nor will there ever be a society that is not "broken" because....
 
Genesis 6:5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
 
Genesis 8:21  And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.
 
Now America's Founders realized this and established the Republic according to with separate States with their own ruling bodies and three Federal Branches, all according to Scripture (see http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/BliblicalFoundation.html). They also did not create a democracy, but a republic for the same reason.
 
The first and almost the only Book deserving of universal attention is the Bible. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. John Quincy Adams
 
“[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Samuel Adams
 
“[A] Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States... as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Thomas Jefferson
 
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary…. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” James Madison
 
This is why our Lord not only called us to preach John 3:16, but also what He said through verse 21. This is why He commissioned His followers to be the salt and Light of the world. You cannot have righteousness without judgment. See Deuteronomy 27 & 28 for "cursed be the man" and the blessings of obedience.
 
Btw - The Kingdom of God is not a religion, but a government with a King.) You may wish to see Judging and Reproof along with What is the Kingdom of God. 
 
This is why even "Christians," or "Kingdom citizens" get duped into believing government can mandate a utopian state.
 
Jesus warned in Matthew 24:24:  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
 
Therefore EarsToHear.net exists...in obedience to what the Holy Spirit has revealed...not only to preach the Good News about the Lord's grace and mercy, but also as He commands....(2 Timothy 4:2-4) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
 
From Dr. Charles S. Price One Freedom -- This world system in which self has waxed fat is not a planting of "the Father" but is a growth and result of the Adamic curse, under "our father the devil." We have been clothed with the wool from the back of self; wool of the production of self. We have patted self and exalted self until it has grown and spread itself like a GREEN BAY TREE! We know not that we are "wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked?"

Part of our Christian call as Ambassadors for Christ has been abandoned, and which we are now witnessing the results, is to....
 
Colossians 4:5-6 "Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man."
 
1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
 
2 Timothy 2:15-19 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as does a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are his. And, Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
 
Titus 3:9-11 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.
 
2 Timothy 3:16-4:4 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
 
Luke 11:52 - Woe unto you, lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered.