The Constitution grants certain enumerated powers to Congress.
Several Amendments have granted additional powers. ("Congress shall have the power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.")
There's nothing in there about creating or supporting public charities.
That used to be the church's job.
So what happened?
And how has that worked out?
I'll tell you how. We have a permanent underclass, dependent on the government, which has no incentive to help people out of poverty.
Taxes and Tithes: Is Government Replacing the Church?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2013/02/04 23:07:43
|
|
|||||
|
14 votes
|
|
15% | ||
|
39 votes
|
|
41% | ||
|
20 votes
|
|
21% | ||
|
22 votes
|
|
23% | ||
If you click through to the article, you can compare directly the powers and duties of the government and the church (or "temple").
On one side you have the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. (In addition to those named, Congress is granted the power:
To enforce voting rights for all adult citizens (18 and older), male and female, of all races (Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI),
To lay and collect taxes on incomes (XVI),
To support the enforcement of state liquor laws (XXI), and
To forbid any State to enact a poll tax for Presidential elections (and primaries) and Senate and congressional elections (XXIV).
On the other side you have a very short list of things that church tithes are to pay for.
Here's the deal: the church was supposed to handle charity. Why did they give this up to the government (or let the government take it away)?
So: is the government replacing the church? And if so, is that constitutional?
On one side you have the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. (In addition to those named, Congress is granted the power:
To enforce voting rights for all adult citizens (18 and older), male and female, of all races (Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI),
To lay and collect taxes on incomes (XVI),
To support the enforcement of state liquor laws (XXI), and
To forbid any State to enact a poll tax for Presidential elections (and primaries) and Senate and congressional elections (XXIV).
On the other side you have a very short list of things that church tithes are to pay for.
Here's the deal: the church was supposed to handle charity. Why did they give this up to the government (or let the government take it away)?
So: is the government replacing the church? And if so, is that constitutional?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2013/02/04...
i
We had a liberal Texan president as well....He wanted to see that everyone could exercise their right to vote. The key element that you need to know is, I am an American first and foremost. I have lived everywhere all over the country under many differenr political situations...I'll take well rounded over myopic anyday.
The social security system has grown since then to be integral to the welfare of Australian individuals and families. It is timely to reflect on how the sys- tem has come to be as it is now.
These days, of course, social security is wide-ranging and complex. It directly affects a large majority of Australians at any given time and nearly every Aus- tralian at some point in his or her life. It has substantial impacts on the economy; expenditure on what is conventionally regarded as social security in Australia (a narrow definition by international stan- dards) represents something like six per cent of gross domestic product and accounts for between one-fifth and one-quarter of the Commonwealth’s budget (the exact figure depending on the definition of Common- wealth expenditure).
These expenditure figures do not tell the full story. Among other things, they exclude:
employment injury benefits, which are known in Australia as workers’...
The social security system has grown since then to be integral to the welfare of Australian individuals and families. It is timely to reflect on how the sys- tem has come to be as it is now.
These days, of course, social security is wide-ranging and complex. It directly affects a large majority of Australians at any given time and nearly every Aus- tralian at some point in his or her life. It has substantial impacts on the economy; expenditure on what is conventionally regarded as social security in Australia (a narrow definition by international stan- dards) represents something like six per cent of gross domestic product and accounts for between one-fifth and one-quarter of the Commonwealth’s budget (the exact figure depending on the definition of Common- wealth expenditure).
These expenditure figures do not tell the full story. Among other things, they exclude:
employment injury benefits, which are known in Australia as workers’ compensation and (with
the exception of provisions for Commonwealth employees) are generally administered by state and territory governments;
health benefits, an area of major expenditure and policy interest;
veterans’ pensions, which for many people wholly or partly replace what would otherwise be payable via social security; and
retirement benefits paid by superannuation funds, which (as with veterans’ pensions) wholly or partly displace social security for many people.
They also exclude “tax expenditures”—the very large amounts of revenue that the Commonwealth loses through the generous concessions it allows in the tax system for purposes related to social security.
A framework for analysis
Here are four propositions to consider about the Aus- tralian model of social security and its evolution:
It differs markedly from the international norm.
It has proven to be remarkably resilient since its inception a century ago.
Arrangements akin to social insurance (the usual model elsewhere) have, as a result, developed in the private sector, usually under the direction of legislation and with financial support from government.
Nearly 90% of what my church takes in goes to paying its bills.
The other 10% or more goes to charity including feeding the poor and homeless at our soup kitchen.
In addition we collect food and clothing to give directly to the hungry and homeless.
Do Christians in NJ tithe? What is the money used for there?
It’s economically impossible for government to replace the church in feeding the poor and taking on other essential issues.
Government spends nearly $60000 per household in welfare costs. Our churches can deliver the same or better services for about half that cost.
Also, government doesn’t have the ability to transform individuals’ lives and to create the lasting change that is needed to lift people out of poverty.
Also, just to piss you off a little bit more – defense spending is equivalent to 443% of what we collect in total corporate taxes.
Not for nothing, where are your facts? Do you live in Chi?
I am all for building up defense and if you don't like or concur with what I believe, libbietarianski, take a shovel and dig your own grave, wanker, just to get your ire.
Now, have a nice night and try to stay pure as DRIVEN slush, LIBERAL (that's what you really are, wad).
What are YOU going to do? What have you done? F*ck You. POS. You are nothing more than a loser OWSer poseur. Jagoff. Typical BS swing by the Libertarian numbskulls.
Oh, I am so scared of your *ucking lazy ass. pffftttt...take a hike, dork.
go wipe your ass.
Awwww....your perdy fweellings hurt,, chump?
Of course you had to edit this one, moronski: LMAO! Tool. Yeah, YOU!
"A man at twenty who is not liberal has no heart. A man at forty who is not conservative has no head" ~ a favorite quote, from Winston Churchill.
Had to wiki that one eh? LMAO!!!!