"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:

• Income Inequality Not Necessarily Inequitable Favoring redistribution ignores the fact that there is no way to make the poor richer without making the rich poorer... Contrary to the popular contention that a heavy concentration of income at the top is harmful, the 1 percent can increase their income so long as it is Pareto efficient. Consider a scenario where 99 percent of the population makes $10 and the top 1 percent makes $100. In the second scenario, 99 percent of the population makes $12 and the top 1 percent makes $130. Though the income gap increases in both absolute and relative terms, everyone is better off in the second scenario.
     ...Indeed, it seems that regulation and taxation actually serve to make everyone poorer. President Obama has proposed to increase taxes on the wealthiest and raise the minimum wage. Instead, the best economic approach to benefit the middle class would involve flattening the income tax and deregulating labor markets. Source: Richard Epstein, "In Praise of Income Inequality," Hoover Institution, February 19, 2013.  

• Generation Brainwashed: Charity is Not Redistribution of Wealth By Andrea Roltgen - “…The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -James Madison
     “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”  Unfortunately, most Americans today believe it is the responsibility of the US government to provide for the general welfare, and then some, to all people.  Notice I did not say citizens?  We also have the issue of believing that our general welfare should sustain and support millions of illegal aliens.  It’s billed to us as charity.  However, as is always the case, words have meaning and their meaning impacts how words are utilized.
     English author and Oxford professor C.S. Lewis coined the term “verbicide”, meaning the dangerous situation of exchanging true meanings of words for the false.  It was recognized to be incremental, or immediate.  The understanding that there is deep value in the true nature of words was understood by Confucius, who stated, “When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.”
     Ancient men, and the Founding Fathers of the United States clearly understood that word meanings, when written in the context of their original language, should be kept in the context of their original language.  Inventing new phraseology to give acceptance to socialist efforts today, does not change the original language of the Founding Documents and the Constitution and the intent therein. 
     Changing the definition of “murder” to exclude stopping a beating heart within a woman, does not change the original definition of murder by the Creator God and continued in understanding by the Framers of the Constitution. 
     Changing the definition of “marriage” from a man and a woman in a life-long covenant before the Lord God, to include whomever has emotional or sexual feelings and wishes to join as if they were man and woman, does not change the definition. Likewise, changing the original meaning of the clause of “general welfare” to include the provision for a government run entitlement society, does not negate the intent of the wording, given it’s original understanding.

• How Government Handouts Create Life-Sapping Dependency By Daniel J. Mitchell - Now, courtesy of some first-rate journalism by a local television station, we have a powerful example exposing how the system operates. We learn the story of Kristina, who chooses to earn less money in order to keep the taxpayer-funded gravy train rolling. We’ve all heard the line that America is becoming an entitlement society or welfare state, with half of U.S. households now receiving some type of government benefit.
     But a CBS 21 News investigation has taken that stat one step further to show you how much people are actually getting for free. A few years ago, reporter Chris Papst worked with a single mom who had two children. She turned down a raise because she said the extra money would decrease her government benefits. It was hard to understand why she did that, until Chris started working on this story. “You do what you have to do as a single mom,” explained Kristina Cogan. “And that’s what I did.” ……she admits living a life off the government can be comfortable. “If you’re going to get something for free, are you going to work for it?” Cogan explained. “It kind of like sucks you in.”
     Here are some of the horrific details. For this story, CBS 21 researched what government programs are available to a single mother of two making $19,000 a year. What we found was incredible. Our family would be eligible for $14,976 in free day care, another $13,400 for Head Start and Early Head Start, $7,148 in housing vouchers, $6,500 for weatherization projects, $400 to pay heating bills, $480 a year for a cell phone, with an extra $230 for a land line, and $182 in free legal advice. The family would get more than $6,028 in food assistance and another $6,045 in medical assistance. The mother is eligible for $5,500 in Pell Grants for school with an additional $12,000 for the Education Opportunity Grant; SMART Grant; and TEACH Grant. Our family would also get $6,800 in tax credits, and $1,900 in withholding would be returned. Add it up and this family can get $81,589 in free assistance. There’s nothing in the story to suggest that Ms. Cogan is utilizing all these programs, but the plethora of available goodies certainly helps to explain why so many people decide it’s easier to be moochers rather than producers.

• Thanksgiving, The Pilgrims And Their Failed Experiment With Collectivism - By fyork - Many of our modern politicians who seem so enamored of communal living and “shared responsibility” could take a lesson from the Pilgrims, though it’s unlikely they will. They’re blinded by their Marxist ideology. The Pilgrim communal experiment began in 1622 or so and involved approximately two dozen families. The system prohibited private property and everyone shared equally no matter how hard they worked. As a result, they nearly starved to death. The lazy took what they wanted and the productive became disheartened. Very soon, even the productive citizens weren’t producing food.
     Governor William Bradford described what happened when the Pilgrims finally rejected their experiment with communism: “At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view, — for present purposes only, and making no division for inheritance, — all boys and children being included under some family. This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.
     The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. “The failure of the experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, — that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.
     “For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. The aged and graver men, who were ranked and equalized in labour, food, clothes, etc., with the humbler and younger ones, thought it some indignity and disrespect to them. As for men’s wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it.
      “This feature of it would have been worse still, if they had been men of an inferior class. If (it was thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw that another plan of life was fitter for them.
     ...The communal experiment failed because it violated basic human nature and the value of private property and rewards for individual initiative. The indolent seized what they wished and the productive became disillusioned and stopped producing. It sounds like a description of Barack Obama’s vision for America.   William Bradford saw first-hand how devastating “communal” policies are to the lives of men, women, and children.
• Enduring Ignorance, Part 2 By Arnold Ahlert - Conservatism can thrive without progressivism. Progressivism cannot survive without conservatism. In short, a progressive worldview built on redistributionism, must have something to re-distribute. Without the efforts of the makers, the takers and their enablers are dead in the water. The most remarkable aspect of this last election is that Democrats ran on a platform that amounted to biting the hand that feeds them, and still prevailed.
• New Record: Almost 9 Million Receiving ‘Disability’ Checks From Taxpayers The number of American workers collecting federal disability insurance benefits hit yet another record high in October, according to the Social Security Administration. This month 8,803,335 disabled workers are collecting benefits, up from the previous record of 8,786,049 set in September. In February 2009, the first full month after President Barack Obama took office, there were 7,469,240 workers collecting federal disability insurance. Thus, so far in Obama’s term, the number of workers collecting disability has increased by 1,334,095. That works out to a net increase of about 29,646 per month (1,334,095 divided by 45 months), or an average increase of about 975 per day (1,334,095 divided by 1,369 days). During George Bush’s eight years as president, the number of workers collecting federal disability insurance increased by 2,375,258, rising from 5,067,119 in February 2001 to 7,442,377 in January 2009. That equaled an average net increase of about 24,742 per month and 813 per day. In Bush’s second term alone, the number of workers on disability increased by 1,198,575, equaling an average monthly increase of about 24,970 and an average daily increase of about 820.
• Obama’s Goal: An Entitled, Dependent Majority by David L. Goetsch  - Here is a widely accepted rule of thumb in politics: Government entitlements, once conferred, can never be taken away.  Government entitlements, by their very nature, tend to be permanent.  A corollary to this rule of thumb is that people who become addicted to government handouts will automatically vote for candidates who promise to feed their habit.   No politician understands this rule of thumb and its corollary better than Barack Obama.  In fact, President Obama not only understands the principles of entitlement and dependency, he is using them in a concerted effort to keep himself in office and to ensure that the radical left will maintain power in Washington, D. C. long after he is enjoying the substantial perquisites of being a former president.
     If it were not such an unscrupulous, unconscionable, deceitful undertaking, one could almost admire President Obama’s single-minded determination to achieve his nefarious goal.  And what is that goal? It is nothing less than an entitled America populated by citizens who are so dependent on the government that Democratic victories in future congressional and presidential elections are guaranteed.  But in their zeal to create dependency, what President Obama refuses to acknowledge is that when our country reaches the tipping point where more people are taking than giving, the economy will fail.  When this happens, it won’t matter how large a majority the Democrats enjoy in Congress, there won’t be enough dollars in the federal treasury to pay the entitlements demanded by their dependent constituents.
• Random Thoughts By Thomas Sowell - Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state, whether in Western Europe or on this side of the Atlantic. ...Do either Barack Obama or his followers have any idea how many countries during the 20th century set out to "spread the wealth" -- and ended up spreading poverty instead? At some point, you have to turn from rhetoric, theories and ideologies to facts. ...If you believe Barack Obama and others who oppose what they call "tax cuts for the rich," you might want to consider what the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." If you want to see some documented facts about tax rates and tax revenues, there is a box titled "Tax Cuts" on my web site (www.tsowell.com). Click on it.
•  Depending on Dependency By Thomas Sowell - The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless. All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
     ...When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities. Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate. Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers' money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.  
     ...The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly understands today. Dependency pays off in votes -- unless somebody alerts the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill. The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the media -- whether on billboards or on television -- for people to get on food stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell shoppers that food stamps are available. The intelligentsia have for decades been promoting the idea that there should be no stigma to accepting government handouts. Living off the taxpayers is portrayed as a "right" or -- more ponderously -- as part of a "social contract." You may not recall signing any such contract, but it sounds poetic and high-toned. Moreover, it wins votes among the gullible, and that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.
• Charity Not Allowed Unless Okayed by Government by Giacomo - ...one of the tenets of a socialistic government is that charity comes from the government.  Socialism wants everyone to believe that the people owe their existence to the government and when they find themselves in need, the government is the one to turn to.  Under socialism, all other charitable organizations are squashed.  They even will do everything in their power to end private charity as well.  Charity can only come from the government and there is no other option. More and more I’m seeing signs of how our socialistic government under Comrade Obama is implementing the socialistic views of charity.
• Liberals Spend Other People’s Money and Call it ‘Caring’ By Gary DeMar - From 1986 to 1990, ALF aired on NBC. The title character is a friendly but opinionated extraterrestrial nicknamed ALF (an acronym for Alien Life Form), who crash lands in the garage of the suburban middle-class Tanner family. ... In an early scene from the 1986 episode “I’m Your Puppet,” ALF had ordered a ventriloquist dummy, but used Willie Tanner’s money to pay for it. Willie’s daughter Lynn confronts ALF’s cavalier use of other people’s money to pay for things he wants: Lynn Tanner: “You’ve got to stop spending other people’s money.” ALF: “People like it when you spend their money. On Melmac, that’s how you said ‘I care.’”
• Food Stamps: Let's Provide a Safety Net, Not a Mattress By Ken Connor - In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” -Acts 20:35 (NIV) Government provision of food stamps has become the second-largest welfare program in the country and is expanding rapidly. Rich Lowry shares the latest statistics, and they are troubling to say the least. Through the combined efforts of Presidents Bush and Obama, the number of people on food stamps has almost tripled in the last 12 years, growing from 17 million in 2000 to 46 million today! When the program began in the 1970s, only 1 in 50 Americans participated—now the number is 1 in 7. As a society, we have an obligation to reach out and help the poor and needy. At the same time, it is important to strike the right balance—we should provide for those in need without blunting their initiative to provide for themselves. Government programs—however well intended—should not foster a culture of dependence.    ...Forced "charity" that takes from the successful and merely redirects it to the unsuccessful provides the wrong kind of incentives. Our tax and welfare systems should reward thrift, entrepreneurship, and industry, not indolence, timidity, and profligacy. ...Those who believe government more capable of shouldering the burden of poverty often ignore the unintended consequences of government welfare. All too often government poverty programs perpetuate poverty by encouraging the poor to remain poor through perverse incentives. And they give possible benefactors of the poor the easy excuse, "Well, they can always go to the government."
• 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 Washington's – 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.