Ok, Obamaniacs (Cali)....

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Why can't we have our social safety net through our charities? why does it have to be through the government?

You and Mike's thought is if we don't have a government intervention no other way can we help those less fortunate than us. I don't believe this.

Sure, we can donate through charities. No, government "redistribution" isn't the only way. The point here is that it is a legitimate way and it is one way the people have elected to handle certain societal needs, leaving open other avenues for individual election as well.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Sounds like a flat tax would fix this inequality in contribution problem.

Setting aside the many reasons a flat tax is a bad idea, this doesn't remain at all consistent with the approach you took earlier (which is that the government can't use your money to help others). A flat tax still takes your money and gives it to others. Now I am confused as to what you are wanting.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Satan's plan isn't that everybody be saved. I can't believe you would even equate universal salvation with Satan's plan. Satan's plan is about the process for how people are saved. His plan was to require people to do what was right rather than granting them the choice. Christ's plan is in perfect harmony with the concept of universal salvation. He simply didn't require everyone to do what is right. Salvation through his plan comes through a combination of works and mercy. The plan you have articulated eliminates the need for mercy.

Nah. I said I'm not perfect. I know I'll need help. And I conceded I got a bit carried away with the whole plan thing. Are there consequences for actions or not? If I want to be Christlike and assist others with their bad situations, be they a result of specific choices or not, just let me choose to do that rather than forcing me. You said up top "His plan was to require people to do what was right rather than granting them the choice".

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

the point is he doesn't think that government intervention is the best way. Why is it you, ddd and MW can't understand that?

That isn't what he has argued here. Re-read the posts. This debate didn't begin as to whether or not government intervention is the "best way," it began as to whether it is a legitimate way. Venkman explicitly said it isn't, and Colly appears to have agreed. You and BFM are arguing a separate topic.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Setting aside the many reasons a flat tax is a bad idea, this doesn't remain at all consistent with the approach you took earlier (which is that the government can't use your money to help others). A flat tax still takes your money and gives it to others. Now I am confused as to what you are wanting.

Didn't mean to communicate that the government can't use my money to help others. I think the gov't should use my money to promote the public good and protect our rights, not redistribute wealth.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Didn't mean to communicate that the government can't use my money to help others. I think the gov't should use my money to promote the public good and protect our rights, not redistribute wealth.

You still aren't being clear. Do you believe that the government CAN use your money as a "redistribution" of wealth? Set aside whether it SHOULD so we can be clear in our discussion.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That isn't what he has argued here. Re-read the posts. This debate didn't begin as to whether or not government intervention is the "best way," it began as to whether it is a legitimate way. Venkman explicitly said it isn't, and Colly appears to have agreed. You and BFM are arguing a separate topic.

it may have not begun that way but ddd and MW pulled it in that direction with their comments

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You still aren't being clear. Do you believe that the government CAN use your money as a "redistribution" of wealth? Set aside whether it SHOULD so we can be clear in our discussion.

? CAN I shoot you with a gun and kill you? Sure. Yes, the government CAN redistribute wealth. I want to focus on the SHOULD.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

? CAN I shoot you with a gun and kill you? Sure. Yes, the government CAN redistribute wealth. I want to focus on the SHOULD.

That doesn't even make sense. We are clearly not talking about whether the government can illegally take your money (which you imply by suggesting that it is analogous to illegally killing me with a gun).

Does the government have the legal authority, given to it by the people, to redistribute wealth? Answer that and we can get to the SHOULD.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That doesn't even make sense. We are clearly not talking about whether the government can illegally take your money (which you imply by suggesting that it is analogous to illegally killing me with a gun).

Does the government have the legal authority, given to it by the people, to redistribute wealth? Answer that and we can get to the SHOULD.

It's like I'm Jesus and you are a Pharisee with all this. I think it unfortunately does at this point, otherwise we wouldn't have welfare, social security and the like. But I'll continue to vote for politicians who will excercise restraint in the exercising of this unholy power.