This doesn't have to do with taxes, but it has to do with Huckabee...

I think the man has a dark side. He's not right... in the head. (Braveheart quote)

I have the feeling he's trying to "slip by" or hide something. We shall see...

I haven't made my mind up on the fair tax, but I've generally leaned toward thinking it's generally a good idea. The worst assumption that its proponents make is that the government's income must be maintained at current levels--but maybe they're just thinking one battle at a time.

But I suspect that Huckabee's motives are mostly political, rather than a deep-seated ideology. It inoculates him from complaints that he begged the Arkansas legislature for any and all tax hikes.

Since I cannot visualize any scenario in which Huckabee is able to enact the fair tax, it is completely off any list of considerations for me.

I did a lot of in-depth work with the European Value Added Tax in my days as a tax lawyer. This national sales tax is fairly similar, but with different record-keeping requirements. It's doable, but it isn't easy at all. Maybe it's easier for the consumer to not file an income tax return, but businesses have to have entire depts and govt-issued software to figure it out. So the businesses will take their income tax savings, and spend it on trying to comply with the sales tax. And the audits! Holy freaking cow! The audits for that tax are unbelievable!

Also, most European nations have extremely high income taxes to go along with the VAT.

South America, Central America, and several Asian nations also have a VAT, with all the crazy complications I saw in Europe. If the USA thinks it can implement a tax like that and not have any of the issues that beset those other countries that already have it, then we're crazy. A national sales tax is very complicated to administer and collect. It's simple for the store to collect it from the consumer, but everywhere else along the chain of supply a new wrinkle pops up.

Abolishing the IRS is ridiculous. There has to be an agency to enforce tax collection. If you got rid of the IRS, you'd just have to form an agency with the same duties. And why not hire all those guys with all that experience? They used to work for the IRS! You'd just end up with the same agency under a different name.

We are already in bondage.

I suppose we just need to baptize more folks

-- Edited by Mahonri at 13:46, 2007-12-15

Since you buy nearly everything at DI, yer not payin' tax on that anyway! Win win for you!

Couple points:  Either way The IRS itself is based on fraud and deciet.
The IRS is just the bureaucracy stuck with trying to implement the Income tax system as designed and then totally screwed up by the congress constantly fiddling with it.  To say that the agency is based on fraud and deceit, shows a lack of understanding.  Sure they overstep their bounds on occasion, but if people wouldn't try to scam out of paying the costs of government by not paying their taxes, they would have a lot less chance to make such oversteps.

I like taxes on what we buy, not on what we make. Let the hyperconsumers pay for stuff!Unfortunately such a program is regressive, it would hit the poor much, much harder than it would the rich who, btw, pay by and far the largest chunk of the taxes paid in this country.  The rich can afford the extra $0.69 per gallon of Milk mentioned above.  The family that's just squeaking by, cannot.  

I really don't know if there is a way to simplify or streamline the tax system, I personally think a flat tax would be better, but am sure there would be problems with it as well.  And as there would still be those who claim that any federal tax is somehow unconstitional and try to avoid paying, we would still need an IRS to enforce the payment/collection of said tax.  

I think Roper hit the nail on the head on the best way to reduce the tax burden.  Eliminate all those extra programs, that never seem to end.  And even that would not necessarily be low impact on the economy.  End social programs, ok, end farm subsidies perhaps, but do we cut programs that actually add value, like the space program, which has genereated so much scientific advancement, or how about the Dept of Labor's Job Corps program, that returns on average (depending on estimate and review) $6 to $10 on every dollar invested within five years, and keeps on returning year after year that each graduate continues to work as a tax contributing working citizen rather than a welfare consuming citizen.  Where else can we cut?  Cut our Dept of Defense? not likely, even when the current conflicts die down, we need a strong defense.  Plus it provides great career training for many once they leave the military.

So take your pick.  This is why every candidate runs with some type of "Fix" for the tax system, but they never manage to really implement most of those fixes.  Because the system is so integrated and complex, there is no simple fix, and a radical fix will
never gain sufficient support to get enacted

comments in blue

DaKnife wrote:

---

Couple points:  Either way The IRS itself is based on fraud and deciet.
The IRS is just the bureaucracy stuck with trying to implement the Income tax system as designed and then totally screwed up by the congress constantly fiddling with it.  To say that the agency is based on fraud and deceit, shows a lack of understanding.  Sure they overstep their bounds on occasion, but if people wouldn't try to scam out of paying the costs of government by not paying their taxes, they would have a lot less chance to make such oversteps.
INCOME TAXES DO NOT PAY FOR legitimate Government services! Largely they pay for interest on debt to fraudulent monetary system.
SEE the GRACE COMMISSION REPORT by Ronald Reagans appointed PETER GRACE research into where income tax dollars are going.

Also watch America Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.

Additionally an organization that operates with illegal threats harrassment and intimidation techniques, qualifies as a fraudulent organization as well.

I like taxes on what we buy, not on what we make. Let the hyperconsumers pay for stuff!Unfortunately such a program is regressive, it would hit the poor much, much harder than it would the rich who, btw, pay by and far the largest chunk of the taxes paid in this country.  The rich can afford the extra $0.69 per gallon of Milk mentioned above.  The family that's just squeaking by, cannot.  

I really don't know if there is a way to simplify or streamline the tax system, I personally think a flat tax would be better, but am sure there would be problems with it as well.  And as there would still be those who claim that any federal tax is somehow unconstitional and try to avoid paying, we would still need an IRS to enforce the payment/collection of said tax.  

I think Roper hit the nail on the head on the best way to reduce the tax burden.  Eliminate all those extra programs, that never seem to end.  And even that would not necessarily be low impact on the economy.  End social programs, ok, end farm subsidies perhaps, but do we cut programs that actually add value, like the space program, which has genereated so much scientific advancement, or how about the Dept of Labor's Job Corps program, that returns on average (depending on estimate and review) $6 to $10 on every dollar invested within five years, and keeps on returning year after year that each graduate continues to work as a tax contributing working citizen rather than a welfare consuming citizen.  Where else can we cut?  Cut our Dept of Defense? not likely, even when the current conflicts die down, we need a strong defense.  Plus it provides great career training for many once they leave the military.

So take your pick.  This is why every candidate runs with some type of "Fix" for the tax system, but they never manage to really implement most of those fixes.  Because the system is so integrated and complex, there is no simple fix, and a radical fix will
never gain sufficient support to get enacted

---

Slightly off topic....

The Republican primary is a horse race - and you don't want to be first until the end.

In this game they shoot at the front runner - See Huck duck.

I think Ron Paul is just where we want him:

He's in first place with the majority (Us) - and in fifth place with the minority (The people who get polled).

-- Edited by hiddentreasuredotws at 21:19, 2007-12-16

alabamabelle wrote:

---

I'd hate to know that there was someone deciding what programs to keep and what programs go based on simply the 'bottom line'.

While I realize there are layers of fraud in the system as constituted now, I also realize that there are a lot of innocent people who will be left out in the cold if all social programs are eliminated.

it is interesting that we have a COMPLETE review(financial and otherwise) EVERY SINGLE YEAR for our kid and other people we know seldom see the inside of the government offices. So, I would say the first place to make changes might be in the way that they ADMINISTER the money from the top down.

---

Consider having more faith and support in the voluntary fast offering system and less faith in the unrighteous dominion of forced illegitimate government welfare.

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

Consider having more faith and support in the voluntary fast offering system and less faith in the unrighteous dominion of forced illegitimate government welfare.

---

you have got to be kidding, right? 

you are comparing apples to oranges here. and you are inferring that if we NEED the government help that we are somehow lacking in faith. that is not only false doctrine, it's plain rude to make assumptions about the level of faith another person has based on politics!!!

the voluntary fast offering of our church is NOT applicable to society as a whole. they would simply 'volunteer to say NO'! we can't force our church welfare system on society, any more than we can force our members to participate in it themselves.

THAT IS DEFINITELY UNRIGHTEOUS DOMINION!

are you convnced government must do what communities and people should do for each other?

The needy I believe were cared for much better  before government became involved.

Sure the needy were cared for much better, unless they couldn't pay their debts, then it was off to debtors prison. Goodbye to any property they owned, and hello sharecropping or worse. Stick the kids in an orphanage so they can at least get a couple decent meals a day, even if it means they no longer get loving care by their parents.

Any claims to the different are just lost in the haze of fantasy. It used to be that if you ran into financial difficulty, do to sickness, injury, or just bad luck, you were in for serious troubles. Especially if you didn't own sufficient land to produce your own food supply.

I don't like the welfare system, but as it currently is it at least gives the poor a chance to stay together as a family, and work to improve their condition. Yes far to many have just become leeches on society, but the purposes are still there.

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

alabamabelle wrote:

---

I'd hate to know that there was someone deciding what programs to keep and what programs go based on simply the 'bottom line'.

While I realize there are layers of fraud in the system as constituted now, I also realize that there are a lot of innocent people who will be left out in the cold if all social programs are eliminated.

it is interesting that we have a COMPLETE review(financial and otherwise) EVERY SINGLE YEAR for our kid and other people we know seldom see the inside of the government offices. So, I would say the first place to make changes might be in the way that they ADMINISTER the money from the top down.

---

Consider having more faith and support in the voluntary fast offering system and less faith in the unrighteous dominion of forced illegitimate government welfare.

---

Sorry, I should have stated familes, communities and then the churches. Your faith may be great and its  just our  difference in understanding of wether "lgalized" theft is appropriate or even more effective than voluntary charity.

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

alabamabelle wrote:

---

I'd hate to know that there was someone deciding what programs to keep and what programs go based on simply the 'bottom line'.

While I realize there are layers of fraud in the system as constituted now, I also realize that there are a lot of innocent people who will be left out in the cold if all social programs are eliminated.

it is interesting that we have a COMPLETE review(financial and otherwise) EVERY SINGLE YEAR for our kid and other people we know seldom see the inside of the government offices. So, I would say the first place to make changes might be in the way that they ADMINISTER the money from the top down.

---

Consider having more faith and support in the voluntary fast offering system and less faith in the unrighteous dominion of forced illegitimate government welfare.

---

Sorry, I should have stated familes, communities and then the churches. Your faith may be great and its  just our  difference in understanding of wether "lgalized" theft is appropriate or even more effective than voluntary charity.

---

hidden, how well do you really understand the welfare program of The Church?  It doesn't look like it is conceptually correct.

Self, family, Church...  And the Church system does not consider community / government provided safety nets as "legalized" theft or wrong for those in need to avail themselves of.  What the Church frowns upon is people making themselves dependent upon those who otherwise could be working towards self-reliance.

My father was multi-regional welfare agent for the Church for well over a decade (after serving as a Bishop, a Stake President's Councilor, and on the High Council)... I think some of what he taught Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies and other leaders around the state about how Church welfare works may have also been taught in word and deed to me and my siblings over the years...

One thing that always amazes me when people start talking about the "illegal" taking and theft of money in the form of taxes that then is used in welfare / social situations amongst the greater population is the claim things would run so much better if it were all voluntary charitable donations...

Okay, so, how many people if they weren't taxed would really give that money directly to a charity?  And then, how many people would not complain about how much of each dollar donated ends up paying for "administrative costs" and "overhead" at the charity?

And lastly, how many people really stop and consider how much food (or other real assistance) their voluntary fast offering to the Church is going to buy?  As I've understood it, fast offerings are first utilized in the ward they are collected in, any surplus goes to the Stake for units that have greater needs, and Stake surplus goes to the Church HQ and likewise is redistributed to Stakes and areas of the church that have greater needs.

Yes, as far as the fast offering thing goes, the finger points back at me as well.  But, truth be said, we give what we can afford.  We sometimes give what we can't afford... We wish that our financial situation was such that we could be far more generous, but as the scripture in Mosiah says, "I give not because I have not". 

You know, I'm gonna have to weigh in on Hidden's side.  The proper role of government is not to provide welfare, and this is gonna sound harsh, to anybody--handicapped, infirm, old, sick, etc.

The proper role of government is to establish and maintain the maximum amount of liberty possible for its citizens.  It's the responsibility of families, communities, and religious and other charitable organizations to care for each other.

I know there are members of this forum who are very grateful for the services the government provides for their loved ones.  I am sensitive to that perspective--I have had loved ones who depended on those services.  The issue is not if those services are needed--they are.  The issue is not if those services are valuable--they are.  The issue is if those services should be provided by the federal government--they should not.

there will never be a way to make everyone happy on this thread.

we all have our own agendas that keep us myopically focused on our personal situations.

and that's cool.

we can deeply feel for our own circumstances and even have the ability, from time to time, to feel the suffering and sorrow of another and do something within the framework of our system of democratic government to affect change.

that is why we live in a republic instead of a dictatorship.

God Bless America, if it is right that He should do so.

There is a great misunderstanding and lack of education regarding the constitution and the proper role of government.

If I am sick and can not work and I have no car do I have the right to steal from my more fortunate neighbor who has 2 cars? Can I just help myself to his personal property?

Governments authority comes from us. If I do not have the right to steal from my neighbor then I do not have the right to grant that to the government because that right does not even belong to me to give. Even if some of my neighbors agree with me even 51% of my neighborhood, it still is theft and plunder and if done together by voting it first it is nothing more than legalized plunder. That is how mobs and gangs operate, under the majority rules rather thanh rule of law and individual rights. Sadly that is how our government operates as well. The church has denounced theft but currently I believe realizes that the situation has gotten to the point where many citizens are subservient. Going to another country is not the solution. Reversing the trend or at least educatinmg citizens so that they are prepared for ZION type living is the proper position I believe. Its not that this country is worse than other places, its that the principles that made it great have been abandoned and we are headed to total collapse, both economicly and morally, and legalized plunder is a moral issue. Personally I believe that a moral society can provide for the less fortunate voluntarily and much better than through force of plunder. The working class now pays over 50% of their income to TAXES. Almost none of which helps the needy, and almost all of which goes to interest payments towards the credit card like monetary policy  in which we pay the minimum why we sell our children into bondage, because they cant possibly pay off the debt that is soon to be called in.

here are a few points to consider..

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/77/record-wholesale-price-jump-shows-need-for-ron-paul

although not 100% acurate the general idea in the following article is correct...
http://www.justiceplus.org/bankers.htm

video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

For a great article on the proper Role of Government I suggest ETB's video MAN, FREEDOM and GOVERNMENT. Also visit www.latterdayconservative.com

alabamabelle wrote:

---

---

"hidden", I agree that we do not have "THE RIGHT" to steal from anyone. but where we diverge is upon what you consider theft.


We have a son on a mission right now. By and large, he earned all of his money to go. But if he hadn't earned it due to circumstances beyond his control, but was WORTHY to serve, would it still be theft from others for him to have the money provided for him?
NO, the  church NEVER uses force against members for such.  No money is taken without permission and even then its not taken but recieved.

Frankly, I see no difference between that analogy and helping those who by circumstance are unable to do for themselves through the government, which IS we the people.
THE Difference is voluntary vs. force.

I cannot reconcile myself to the sorrow I feel for all of those who suffer and the lack of people to care for them the way that would be God ordained.
YOU OBVIOUSLY have a great heart.

.
...And, to some people, that would constitute theft of the offerings.  I have never heard that position before.


Some people, in order to have a mortal body, accepted conditions of mortality that you cannot begin to fathom. And they did so WILLINGLY  - knowing that the very brothers and sisters they hugged and kissed and wept with before they left the Father's presence might not be so willing to help them as they chose to use their precious agency to walk away and complain about them and their "waste" of monies that could be spent elsewhere. This is very sad!

 

Which people are you willing to deem as unworthy of the aid they receive based on your personal perception? I KNOW that we have issues that need to be resolved in the way the money and resources are managed within our nation.  If we bypass the unethical immoral policies this would not be the same magnitude of a problem I believe.

But I have no divining rod that gives me absolute proof of why that normal looking man down the street doesn't work or why that woman and her children live in government housing or the income level of someone who receives an SSI disability check for their family member. Many of the troubles of our world do not come with visible tags that tell everyone what lot in life they are required to endure. (Steven Covey gives great examples of this in the 7 habits book)

God knows that I pray our circumstances were different. I would give ANYTHING to see my child walk, talk and be able to function in this life!

I cannot bring myself to say anything hurtful to another person about this issue because only someone who has spent the agonizing hours waiting for news of their loved one in the hospital can truly understand how deeply sad this can be. I know that must be very difficult.

---

-- Edited by hiddentreasuredotws at 10:16, 2007-12-18

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

If I am sick and can not work and I have no car do I have the right to steal from my more fortunate neighbor who has 2 cars? Can I just help myself to his personal property?

Governments authority comes from us. If I do not have the right to steal from my neighbor then I do not have the right to grant that to the government because that right does not even belong to me to give. Even if some of my neighbors agree with me even 51% of my neighborhood, it still is theft and plunder and if done together by voting it first it is nothing more than legalized plunder. That is how mobs and gangs operate, under the majority rules rather thanh rule of law and individual rights. Sadly that is how our government operates as well.

Sir, to imply that a public vote for a tax is invalid (and hence the law to tax illegal) because no man is justified in stealing from another is a pernicious doctrine, and is not of God.  It also reveals that there is no trust in the system of liberty you claim to advocate.  It also does not agree with the fact that God ordained governments for the benefit of mankind and the other statements that are held as scripture in D&C 134.

The church has denounced theft but currently I believe realizes that the situation has gotten to the point where many citizens are subservient. Going to another country is not the solution. Reversing the trend or at least educatinmg citizens so that they are prepared for ZION type living is the proper position I believe.

Political education is not the answer or key.  The answer, as has been repeatedly stated by President Hinckley, is repentance and obedience to God's commandments.

---

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

I have never heard that position before.

---

you must have been surrounded by truly celestial people during your sojourn on this mortal coil. I haven't always had that blessing. While I have been, from time to time, in the company of people fit for the kingdom, more of those I am surrounded by, myself included, are just hoping to make their way into the kingdom as best as they can without offending God and man in the process.

my family has seen our share of people who see the endless stream of truly needy, semi-needy, temporarily needed and scammers line up every single week to petition for the church to support their 'laundry list of needs'.

My Daddy was a member of one bishopric or another for a LONG time and on the Stake High Counsel in addition to serving as a financial clerk for both ward and stake.

In the years since he served, he said they literally had people who would call and complain that someone who was receiving church help had a nicer car or a newer coat or whatever 'pint of cream' they cared to mention and they wanted the church to stop helping the other person with 'their fast offering money'.

alabamabelle wrote:

---

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

---

I have never heard that position before.

---

you must have been surrounded by truly celestial people during your sojourn on this mortal coil(THAT WoULD HAVE BEEN NICE). I haven't always had that blessing. While I have been, from time to time, in the company of people fit for the kingdom, more of those I am surrounded by, myself included, are just hoping to make their way into the kingdom as best as they can without offending God and man in the process.

my family has seen our share of people who see the endless stream of truly needy, semi-needy, temporarily needed and scammers line up every single week to petition for the church to support their 'laundry list of needs'.

My Daddy was a member of one bishopric or another for a LONG time and on the Stake High Counsel in addition to serving as a financial clerk for both ward and stake.

In the years since he served, he said they literally had people who would call and complain that someone who was receiving church help had a nicer car or a newer coat or whatever 'pint of cream' they cared to mention and they wanted the church to stop helping the other person with 'their fast offering money'.

---

Sorry, I am not suggesting that doesnt happen and I would be suprised if it never did, but I havent been exposed to others political psoition of such . If I give my money to the church it is no longer mine. Therefore as you suggest I agree those people may be out of line, although they may be entitled to their opinions and concerns of how its spent, it isnt the same as someone taking money out of my earnings without consent and then using for however they see fit.

it is interesting that our society has learned how to "SEGMENT" what is a 'social benefit' and what is 'an expectation'.

let's consider a few things and reason together:

How ALL OF US benefit from government "social programs" 101 - - -

streets & highways paid for the public use by federal funding from gasoline tax (if you don't like that - feel free to purchase all of your own equipment and make your own roads)

police protection - paid for training, equipment and education (is you neighborhood watch organization capable and willing to take over their job?)
 
Electricity in some areas is a government controlled process. TVA is our local power supplier. They lose government funding and we return to the stone age.

FDA - to protect the food we eats unless you LITERALLY grows every morsel that goes into your mouth and the mouths of any livestock you raise

FDA  - to protect the quality of any medicinals your family uses (unless they are all into that feel good homeopathy stuff and they grow that too)

FAA - who keeps planes from landing on your head

FCC - who keeps smut (by and large) from the airwaves - assuming you aren't a purist who only listens at conference because you 'have no choice' where you live

local schools (unless they home schooled)

doctors, nurses, other health professionals whose educations are quite often funded or at least subsidized by taxpayer funding.

how about prisons? if you'll play nice, I'm SURE the people in the Supermax will be good neighbors. those also are federally funded. {NOTE: even when WE may be more than willing to BE good neighbors, it is naive presumption to think everyone feels that same way}

hospital visit? painful as they are they are ALSO by and large taxpayer supported entities (unless they are PRIVATE in which case, they can and do refuse services to people ALL OF THE TIME) - hope you know how to remove a hot appendix with your scout knife.

GOT MAIL??? Well, some hapless government employees made sure it was delivered in time for Christmas.

lunch at school from the cafeteria? also government supported EVEN WHEN YOU PAY FOR IT they support the food program so the meal doesn't cost what it would on the economy.

military which protects our right to live free with their blood, their sanity and their lives ALSO paid for by "WE THE PEOPLE". If you don't like THEM serving for you, FEEL FREE TO TAKE THEIR PLACE AND PAY YOUR WAY.

and the list just scrolls on from there. . .

I can't think of much in our nation that hasn't been touched by the faith and support of 'WE THE PEOPLE' having faith and trust in the government that we have in our nation.

We keep coming back to this being a choice between volunteering to donate versus the idea of being robbed.

I defy ANYONE living in 2007 to claim that they had never directly benefitted from government services during their lifetime. NO matter what country they live in, they have some government agencies that help ensure their opportunties to exist.

Since that is the case, did you rob yourself?  

The Proper Role of Government. Interesting thoughts coming into focus. . .

We are not socialists nor fascists because we look to our government to redistribute tax dollars that we WILLINGLY PAID as part of the price of living in the republic. And it isn't socialism or fascism to expect that we should, as a society, care for our poor, indigent and sick.

I write to my democratically elected leaders any time I think they are 'doing it wrong', whatever that wrong may be. I participate by using my vote to be my voice so that when I stand before my Maker, I can say I vote my conscience to the best of my understanding and of my beliefs.

Do you remember the story of the woman and the ointment from the New Testament? 

THEN Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. (New Testament | John 12:1 - 6)

I bring these scriptures up as a reference because it seems that when we as a society become willing to strip away everything that is the literal bread in the mouth of the poor who have NO OTHER CHOICES, we are no better than Judas because we are thinking only about the weight of all that lovely money and not about the need. Judas didn't care about what happened with the ointment because his spiritual understanding was insufficient to the purpose. And he didn't want to progress and change.

By all means possible and through all legitimate channels, work to create a voluntary program to replace what we have now, but don't callously drop what we DO have until you are certain that you have sustainability within your new program. People jump on bandwagons when things sound good FOR THEM. They also jump off of them when they can no longer see a benefit to themselves personally and then the fountain of charity dries up.

As to why your beliefs would change based on life experience, we can't keep the same beliefs we start out with all through our life. Most babies believe when they cry they will be held, fed and changed. I am assuming you no longer request your attention or food in that manner?

Your belief system changed as you grew and your understanding changed based on your capacity AT THAT TIME.

Same thing within a constitutional form of government. Our wise founding fathers created an incubator for the birth of a nation. But, in their wisdom, and through much argument and heated debate, they realized that they couldn't have an 'all or nothing' approach to our newly minted freedom.

There had to be room for growth as our understanding of just what liberty and freedom meant to our nation became more clear with the passage of time.

Because we can amend (or change principled beliefs according to knowledge) our constitution, slavery was abolished, women's suffrage was granted, black suffrage granted, etc. We couldn't have progressed through all of those changes in one broad stroke. To do so would have so wounded the infant nation as to have rended it asunder before it was even ready to leave the cradle of liberty.

There will not ever be a perfect system created by man. But I do believe that the Constitution crafted through literal blood, sweat and tears of the Founders comes as close as it can be to that perfection. It is God ordained and God supported for this nation. That is the very reason why ETB was brought to tears over our Constitution and it's principles. { NOTE: ETB himself worked many years tirelessly for our government aiding poor people worldwide through the use of 'WE THE PEOPLE's" tax money.}

Having said that, I must also say that there is room within the arms of liberty and justice for all to enter and receive the blessings of liberty. Greed and manipulation are simply tools applied by people who haven't received the Light of Christ. Mankind gravitates to the lowest common denominator without that Light.

Our responsibility is to share that light and be patient enough for all men to COME UNTO CHRIST, no matter how long that takes. We aren't all on the same level of readiness. By default that means we must suffer along at our perceived 'higher level' while someone else staggers along in the darkness until they are READY to receive more light. {Oddly enough, they may be looking at us with the same perceptions of where they are at a 'higher level' of understanding and capacity.}

If we wish to affect change, there are things we should do:

We must be more obedient to the words of our Living Prophet and less reliant on the writings of anyone else. He speaks God's words. Other people speak their own and their interpretations of what has been said by the prophet based on their level of light, knowledge and understanding.

We must be more willing to be led by our covenants and less likely to follow the lights of every passing ship. We can only help other people progress along to the point that we are at. We cannot lift them beyond where we, ourselves, stand.

We must be more holy in order to truly see and respond to the needs that surround us. I can't to everything, but I CAN do something. So I'll do what good I can do.

 

Cat Herder wrote:

---

Where in the Constitution is it stated that the responsibility to take care of one another falls solely on families, communities, religious and other charitable organizations?

---

Thank you for making my point, Cat.   Those responsibilities not specifically assigned by the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.  Welfare and social justice are not among those responsbililites specifically assigned.