Um, he did…

As I mentioned above by citing the movie Pursuit of Happyness, there is precious little reason to be poor in America. Will it be difficult to get a good education if you're a latch-key kid who never knows when his next meal will come? Of course. I'm not naive. But it is not impossible.

Have you?

You're talking about three specific people – I'm talking about are the regular people who have worked hard, earned money that now the government wants to take. Not billionaires. Regular folks who own the businesses or work for businesses to support their families. Where does the scripture ever say wealth raiding is permissible? People are to contribute individually.

Sorry you're so mad about this. I wonder why that is?

Spare us the pseudo-Calvinist theological garbage about the poor being the authors of their own just misfortune, while the super-rich exploiters are simply enjoying the just rewards of a generous God for their own obvious moral infallibility.

Well-versed in the temptations of great wealth, they have such moral concern for the character of the poor that they do everything they can to make sure that those will never be similarly tempted and fail. Generous to many faults, they take that enormous burden of the corrosive properties of great wealth upon their own sacrificial selves.

To Bernie and the legion of mini-Madoffs, the Puritans' Wealth Jesus proclaims: “Well done, My just and faithful servants!”

“Well done, Sirs, well done! And as my servant Conrad Black has observed, (he being currently engaged in penitence and contemplation) 'What a splendid conveyance of wealth it has been!'”

Consequences matter more than intentions. Unfortunately the consequences of such a bill only stimulates the politically well-connected and not everyone.

Hey Wallis, if you're about equal tax burden, how about a flat tax for all adults, with no special favors for being single or being married?

Q1) Do you have good intentions?

A) Yes sir!

Q2) Do you agree with our political viewpoints?

A) Absolutely.

Does anybody have a moral conscience when it comes to such a “moral document” as a budget?! It's absolute insanity the amount we're spending. This is not only more of the same of the past eight years, it's a jump further off the cliff of insanity.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation.”

“You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it”

Jim asserts that is the question to guide our budget audit.

For clarity's sake–I am assuming the measure, then, is whether the budget provides a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty.

Frankly, I am very surprised Jim goes to that point. There are a host of pundit/critics making a fundamental charge that this is the basic goal of the administration–the redistribution of wealth.

And you assert that this is the fundamental moral measure of the budget???

If the government confiscated all wealth and granted each person $200 per month–there would be absolutely fair distribution of wealth. Is that the desire?

To be fair the question simply asks for a fairer distribution. So if that is the audit measure–what is the ideal distribution so we know if this gets us there.

But secondly, I thought a budget described how the assets of the government would be spent. I am unclear how the budget process gets at a redistribution.

I believe there are foundational government responsibilities that serve the common good. I believe that in common we are to define those responsibilities and then apply a system of taxation to pay for those commitments. I believe in progressive taxation–but only as a means to pay for our common commitments. Not with the goal of equitable distribution of wealth.

The capacity to bring “balance” in a massively complex global order depends on controlling far more than government ought to be controlling.

By demanding so much of government I believe you essentially doom it to failure.

Don't take this as an ounce of defense for the way budgets have been or where Federal priorities have been. I am just befuddled at what you are laying out as the basis for audit–and the scale of government you are after. I don't doubt for a second the legitimate desire for justice — but equitable distribution through massive government control of society is profoundly dangerous in my thinking.

This sounds like government-sponsored theft. You're going to take from someone with wealth and give it to someone without. Have you even asked why the poor person you give this money to is poor? Certainly there could be valid reasons – but it could also be because the person has made bad decision and we do reap what we sow.

Ever seen Pursuit of Happyness? That movie (and the true story behind it) debunks this entire post.

Because Warren Buffet says something, as demonstrated by HIS results in the market, doesn't make it correct, either. The Federal budget depends on payroll taxes and income taxes. The receptionist isn't paying income taxes any more; he/she is a net recipient in the system now. The taxes they are paying are state and local taxes, which Obama's budget does nothing to correct because it isn't within their realm.

Do you not think they are part of the economy, either? Or just the wealthy are stockholders, especially as investors in banks, once considered a fairly stable investment vehicle? Why not throw the homeowners who “purchased” homes under the bus as well, and let the banks simply deal with the real asset instead of the paper of a mortgage?