The leftists always need to create class warfare to divide us into the so-called haves vs. the have-nots, with some crazy notion that the haves are required to give some of their money to the poor have-nots. What they fail to see is that there is a whole other group called the will-nots. These people have an entitlement mentality and have no intentions of actually earning what they receive, they simply think they have a right as an American to get stuff for free.
It is my thought that there truly are have-nots who simply need a hand-up and aren’t looking or assuming a hand-out. For these, there are charities, where plenty of so-called “haves” give of their time, talent and treasure to give them aid. We don’t need the government doing this, and it really isn’t their job to do so!
The government who tries to redistribute wealth to the will-nots are simply buying their loyalty and their votes. It’s time we elect people to represent us who understand the difference, and will return our country to its founding when the principles of personal responsibility and hard work were the norm.
Five Ft. Three 
Haves, have-nots, will nots…I guess there is a category can-nots as well. Every company I worked for hired a few ‘can-nots’, partly as a tax shelter, partly as an altruistic community
good neighbor policy. it wasn’t that they were unwilling, just not capable. But they tried.
Most I am familiar with though, are people who were laid off, cannot find work and have used
up their savings and sold their homes at a loss. We might say THEIR wealth was redistributed, right? A couple strange examples; elderly woman, too ill to work, does anyway, no money
for health insurance or to see the doctor, her social security was too tiny to live on so she plugs away. Another guy, luckier, got on disability at age 50, good SSI income, free medicaid; I was non-plussed to hear from him that he is now a chapter leader for the Tea Party. Is he not working
to put himself into the same boat as the tragic old lady? I do not know of any ‘will-nots’ but we are in a rural area, and I assume you are right with the welfare family phenomenon in the bigger cities….
I often wonder about the other will nots, or rather choose nots, especially those who claim Jesus as Savior and Lord… for those of following Him, it is hard to make a case for not redistributing all personal wealth beyond basic living expenses… we may not like that kind of thing, but we cannot deny that Jesus call to take up His cross and suffer is part of this discussion. After all, when we surrender to Jesus, we are supposed to surrender all, aren’t we?
@ Dave and BB , Two excellent points.
@ Beth, unfortunately, the needs and resources required to help the will-nots and can-nots, out weigh the giving of the haves. If, as Dave says, we all took up the cross, there would be plenty to go around and government would not be involved.
Dave – are you advocating a theocracy? Sounds like it. However, since you appear to have a home computer and Internet connection that you are paying for, but you trying to say that everyone should give up everything beyond their basic needs, and the Internet is not a basic need, then you sir are a hypocrite. Plus, when Jesus said to be like Him, He did not give all He had to the government to take care of people, I think He wants us to do it ourselves, not rely on the government to do it for us.
The can-nots in my mind are among the have-nots, and they are the ones who get lost among the will-nots. Liberals lump all the “nots” together, which then is a problem for those truly in need who get lost in the shuffle. If the liberals among us would stop promoting the entitlement mentality, then maybe we can focus all of our charity to the can-nots.
Beth, no, I am not advocating a theocracy… but I do think people should live their faith, and if that conflicts with what the government says, be prepared to suffer the consequences… and of course not, Jesus did not expect the government to take care of people. That was the job of the church.
The problem today is that the church has decided that the type of life Jesus calls us to live is not one they can support.
As for doing it ourselves, the only way someone can see individualism in Jesus’ theology is by misinterpretation. The Gospel of Jesus has always been a community function.
Now I guess one could argue that those that claim Jesus would give more, or do more, if the government would get out of the way, and that may be true. But unfortunately, that is not a valid reason for a Christian to deny his call to love his neighbor with actions.
On a side note, I have no internet connection at my house. At my office, yes, my house, no…
I apologize for the assumption that you have home Internet, Dave.
But I still don’t see how a Christian not advocating the liberal viewpoint of the government being the answer to all of society’s ills means that we don’t live our faith. We can help others as a community without bureaucrats getting involved.
IMO, Beth and Dave are correct; religious people tend to be more charitable. There are thousands of charities that vary greatly in
effectiveness, eg. what they spend on fundraising and paid help compared to what percent
actually is used to help. That site, interestingly, had some of my favorites, and gives me second thoughts: Ronald McDonald House, for example, which does important work, has numerous
geographical subdivisions, and they vary greatly in how effectively they use their funds. The
most rewarding are the sponaneous local things, where the community comes together to
help someone whose house burned down, someone trying to cope with a serious disease etc.
Whether private charity could come close to assisting all the single moms, providing school
lunches for the poor, and other government programs is another question: if charity fails
them…what then?
See, I like to use Charity Navigator, too, BB, because I don’t like to give to charities that spent too much on fundraising or overhead and less on the people in need. When we give our taxes, however, the government in my opinion has a bad track record on being careful with taxpayer’s money, which is why I prefer to not have them try to be like a charity.
I agree, the more local the organization, the better. How to help those in need? I still think keeping the help at the local level is more efficient, and more personal, too.
It’s like we all have the same goal, just very, VERY different ways of getting there.
Beth, you’ve read me over the years… I am a pretty middle of the road kind of guy. And you know that i am always struggling with how someone serious about faith, finds his way in politics.
How do we line up faith and politics is incredibly difficult.
Not really, Dave, the government is not supposed to tell you how to practice your faith right? And our Constitution is based on the idea of freedom, including freedom of religion, so if you think to be a good Christian means to give away everything you have, live in communes and share everything equally with your commune, you are free to do so. You just cannot force anyone else to practice their faith that way. If others want to do the same, and they are not infringing on anyone else’s rights in doing so, go for it!
But expecting the government to govern in a way that makes you feel like you are being a good Christian, or electing a certain politician with the idea that they will have the government run in good Christian fashion, is not how the Constitution works.
What I do not understand is this… how can someone, anyone, compartmentalize their life in such as way as to have one section, say politics, where they can operate outside of their religious convictions.
If elected officials claim allegiance to a faith, and really believe it to the extent that it cause them to act differently, how can they then say but that is not true when they serve in government?
I know we live under secular rule, but perhaps that is why religious leaders have shied away from government service for years… reconciling the two is very hard.
Ellul, one of the leading theologians of the 20th century argues that is the reason Jesus did not participate in his defense before her received the penalty of death… because he did not want to legitimize government as standing alongside faith as equals…
One might ask how should a Christian act under the Constitution, if living under that Constitution is by very nature, in conflict with the Gospel…
How can you say that the Constitution is in conflict with the Gospel, the Constitution does not prevent anyone from loving one another as Jesus said we should, it does not preclude us from helping one another in our own way. It is the leftist way of thinking that the government somehow gives us our rights and provides them for us, nothing could be further from the truth. Our inalienable rights are within us, and under the U.S. Constitution, I feel as a Christian that I can abide by both God and our government, but I want the government to get the hell out of the way so I can do so as I see fit.
In that case, you should think of moving to that great bastion of non-government…..
Somalia.
Are you off your meds or something BB, where in the world did I say I want no government?
BTW, Dave, theologically, I think Ellul was wrong, Jesus did not participate in his own defense because it was God’s will that He would die for our sins and open the gates of Heaven, if He tried to stop that by defending Himself, how could He be doing God’s will?
“..where in the world did I say I want no government?..
“..but I want the government to get the hell out of the way so I can do so as I see fit..”
..the government IS out of the way in Somalia–you could do as you see fit.
I’m still on my meds, not that they do much good at my age….
Prior to that I said I can abide by the government and my religion, so when does abiding mean getting rid of? Getting out of the way does not mean disappear, just move aside to let actual individuals solve problems and help people.
With Obamacare, they might deem you too old for those meds anyway…
Oh Beth..I’ve been too old for meds for years. Is hard liquor a med, by the way?
It appears you are not too old to still have a sense of humor, BB.