Trump's Most Inhumane Act Yet?

[_ajax18]

“The court can compel one who refuses to give charity – or donates less than his means allow

Was this the Jewish court? Was it a secular court or the same Jewish religious institution?

“The court can compel one who refuses to give charity – or donates less than his means allow – to give according to the court's assessment. The recalcitrant can even be flogged, and should he still refuse to give, the court may appropriate his property in the assessed sum for charity (Ket. 49b; Maim. Yad., Mattenot Aniyyim 7:10).”

Ok, interesting. I had no idea how welfare worked in the ancient world. I thought Jesus just went from house to house and pretty much just lived off the land. If someone gave Him food he ate, if not He either provided it miraculously or went hungry, you know the whole I send you without purse or scrip. What exactly was the public assistance (taxed income) that Jesus lived upon. I know they didn't have EBT cards back then. Was there some kind of ancient welfare office he went to collect it or did he just get a check in the mail or perhaps pick it up each month at the temple? If the Jews were in control of the tax money collected I can't imagine the priests were doling out much money to him. But you're basically saying that Jesus's public assistance he was collecting was pretty much guaranteed and he didn't have to ask or beg from anyone. If people refused to give in the moment he could be assured that the Jewish priests would flog his needed public assistance money out of unwilling taxpayers and see to it that He was taken care of in his chosen profession.

I remember the scripture, "Birds have their nests and foxes have their dens but the son of Man hath not where to lay his head." Was there some kind of a glitch in the ancient section 8 housing system that Jesus benefited from?

I’d note that the Feds won’t “stone (you) to death” for not paying your taxes. Neither are all of your tax dollars destined for ‘charity redistributions’.

What was the tax rate under the Jews? Did the Jews also pay taxes to the Romans? I've heard that taxes were up around %30 which is about what I pay. I know Bernie would like to see me paying around 60 cents on every dollar earned. Would it be fair to say that ancient taxes were at least half of what the Democrats want from us now?

[_canpakes]

ajax, that same post gives the tax ‘rates’, with the 20% level being the preferred rate.

I’m not aware of any proposed tax system overhaul by any candidate that hits the levels you are claiming. My best estimate for your income level and filing status, under a Sanders plan, puts you at about a 22% rate. You can check the numbers yourself at:

https://www.bernietax.com

Looks like you’re getting a far better deal these days than you would be in olden times, considering that you get some defense, infrastructure and services included under your modern rate, as opposed to simply ‘charity’.

[_ajax18]

Ok i read most of it. Are you sure Jesus was on the dole? Exactly who are you saying delivered him this welfare payout? A carpenter's pay surely wasn't that bad?

I do wonder how He actually financed his three year mission/ministry.

[_Jersey Girl]

I do wonder how He actually financed his three year mission/ministry.

Charitable donations.

Which was what I was referring to in the first place.

[_ajax18]

Charitable donations.

Which was what I was referring to in the first place.

To me charitable donations would be things like tithing, buying a sandwich for the bum living outside our office, the man's glasses I fixed yesterday for no charge. I can decide to give these things or not without having the state arrest me and bring me into trial if I don't. This is what I always assumed the situation was for people who gave to Jesus. But canpakes article seems to be saying there was compulsory taxation under penalty of civil law that required people to provide Jesus His living. It's very hard for me to believe that was how it was.

[_Gunnar]

Somewhat related to what was discussed in the OP is the administration's decision to deny flu shots to the detainees at the border. This is insane! It is not only added cruelty to the detainees (especially the small children separated from their parents), it is a public health issue that endangers others as well. It practically guarantees that the death rate amongst the detainees will rise sharply, and is unlikely to deter other migrants from coming.

Even those who might approve of denying healthcare treatment to detainees on the grounds that they are not legal residents and their health is not our concern ought to see that this is not a smart approach to public health. Like it or not, the detainees are on American soil, and it endangers the health of everyone, no matter their legal status, to allow a disease to thrive.

CBP should do the smart and humane thing and provide influenza vaccinations to detainees.

[_ajax18]

Like it or not, the detainees are on American soil, and it endangers the health of everyone

Do you think the US government could possibly keep illegal immigrants from getting onto US soil in the first place if they desired to do so? Or are we just at their mercy?

It seems that as soon as an illegal immigrant gets one foot onto US soil, it becomes more expensive to deport him than to grant him a fast track to citizenship.

[_EAllusion]

Like it or not, the detainees are on American soil, and it endangers the health of everyone

Do you think the US government could possibly keep illegal immigrants from getting onto US soil in the first place if they desired to do so? Or are we just at their mercy?

It seems that as soon as an illegal immigrant gets one foot onto US soil, it becomes more expensive to deport him than to grant him a fast track to citizenship.

There's really no other area of law where you are this fanatical about ensuring that zero people successfully break the law. I mean, we're not 100% effective at stopping homicides, so chances are we aren't going to 100% eliminate people crossing the border illegally. As far as crimes go, staying in the US without authorization is about as harmless as jaywalking if not less so, yet you take the position that failure to endorse the most draconian enforcement you can imagine is the same as actively wanting the law broken. You don't apply this logic to a whole range of other law-breaking activity. One would hope you'd immediately see the folly of claiming that failure to give 25 years to life to people who engage in racial housing discrimination is one in the same same with wanting the law broken.

In the real world, you enforce the law as best you can in proportion to both the resources available and severity of the violation.

Of course, this isn't the full story because your positions aren't just about wanting the law enforced. You want the law to be changed to make immigration to the US as hard as possible, if not impossible for non-Europeans. You hide behind, "I just want to see the law followed" to get out of having to defend your desire to enforce an unjust, and ultimately economically harmful immigration policy.

[_Gunnar]

Of course, this isn't the full story because your positions aren't just about wanting the law enforced. You want the law to be changed to make immigration to the US as hard as possible, if not impossible for non-Europeans. You hide behind, "I just want to see the law followed" to get out of having to defend your desire to enforce an unjust, and ultimately economically harmful immigration policy.

Exactly! Or in other words, he hides behind, "I just want to see the law followed" to hide his hateful bigotry.

[_ajax18]

I think for Gunnar and EAllusion current US immigration law as it has been democratically established and hateful bigotry are one in the same.