I do believe turning it off is the best idea ever- before you throw eggs at me- hear me out.
1). It may be the motivation needed for illegals to go home.
2). I know several families abusing the system and getting SNAP. These folks are unusually obese. LARGE! I do believe it is a healthier option to scale back and eat the basics. You can’t buy soap or paper with snap - think about it- they become unhealthy and are most of the time the sickest and needing the health care so obviously this might be a two fold benefit for them and they don’t even realize it. But one of the reasons our government wants dependence on the government.
3) if They truly needy they can reapply-emergency funds are available.
4). Churches and food banks are more than happy to help- I do believe they do not have because they do not ask.
Get yourself back in the community and get to church. Reach out.
HELP IS AVAILABLE. !
I live in PA and food banks are generous and churches are prevalent.
On two occasions in my lifetime, I asked the gubmint for temporary "help" with all of my financial issues. The desperation that I felt was overshadowed by my intense shame....shame that I had to ask for help.
I am truly resentful about the past 60 years of Welfare As A Career. Illegitimate offspring that are produced to guarantee government benefits makes me furious. We have 4+ generations that have been groomed to expect to be taken care of. They have been told that they're victims and that they are ENTITLED to be taken care of.
In my opinion, these people have been trafficked by the demoncratic party for generations.
As much as I'd like to lay it on the Democrats (and yes, the initiation of it and much of its continuation does fall on their shoulders), no other political party (cough, cough, Republicans) has done anything to fix or end it either.
There have been a few times in my life when I (seriously) "needed" help but the government was never there to help. I struggled and survived (once even losing my home, another time *almost* losing my home).
It would be easy for me to say abolish all of these terrible programs, but there are people who truly need help and we as a society should spread a bit of our wealth around to help them. If I wasn't taxed to death, I could easily support another person.
And therein lies the solution - stop having government tax productive people to support those in need, and instead, let those productive people voluntarily support those in need. That's the way it always worked before government entitlements. But taxes make it more difficult for the generous to do so.
I'll agree our current tax system and government do an absolute horrible job of providing for those in need.
However, I have no assurance that private volunteer support works either. I've read of historical situations and it was absolute hell for those in need. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those people would just "rather die" because the support they got was downright cruel.
There will always be grifters looking to cash in as a charity. With a little research and some personal leg work, you can always find a reputable organization to donate to or needy families to provide direct assistance to. And it is ALWAYS more rewarding than watching welfare being spent on Twinkies, Ho Ho's, and Mountain Dew! Not to mention the sundry other necessities it gets readily spent on daily.
Jefferson warned us that the government that gives us everything is the government that will take it all away.
The Tytler cycle of democracy shows that dependency on the government is the last stage of any democracy before tyranny, and that makes sense – back to Jefferson’s warning.
We used to be charitable people before the government forced us to pay for charity. We are still charitable people, but how many of us now pay for our groceries on plastic – borrowing against our next paycheck? The funds are not there as prices keep going up and wages don't!
Although I agree that it is not the place for the government to take care of people, and it would be a lot better if the government would focus on protecting people v taking care of them, we could certainly reduce fraud and save $$ if we changed SNAP into a warehouse type of distribution where cheap, but (only) nutritious food would be available for the poor, but with the requirement that the able-bodied put in some hours at the warehouse: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/well-snap-yall?r=76q58
It's amazing that every new generation falls for the world's oldest scam: "Put ME in power, and people will never go hungry again! Yes, I know that this plan failed the last time it was tried, but that was because the previous regime did it wrong. But this time I will do it right!"
There are many in government who have done everything possible to eliminate God from our public eye and His guidance in our government. I strongly believe thos is why we are seeing so much evil in our society today. Some say thst our First Amendment says that God has no place in our government. They misinterpret the idea of not having ONE CENTRAL religion or sect. God had a HUGE role in the formation of our government. *I* believe that one cannot have a true moral compass without a belief in God. Man is fallible, God is NOT.
The theme of "it didn't work because they did it wrong" is prevalent in many ideologies surrounding social programs. SocialISM is the one leftists throw out on a regular basis. "If WE changed our government over to a socialist government WE would do things the RIGHT WAY." Like they can guarantee that someone put at the top of the heap WILL NOT become power hungry and corrupt once in power. There are people screaming that Trump is wanting to be "king" and is a "facist" while ignoring the FACT thst EVERY socialist country has had an elected official become a tyrant. Look at what is going on in Venezuela.
The biggest element of socialist government is that the GOVERNMENT is god, and the TRUE God is forced out of society. When people put their faith in MAN rather than GOD they set themselves up for absolute failure.
I saw a scene in a movie (unfortunately I can't remember the title of the film) where a daughter is talking to her mother and said, "I am hopeless." The mother reached across the table and slapped her daughter and said, "Never say you are hopeless. Being hopeless is being without God. Where there is God there is HOPE." That scene has stuck with me for over 2 decades. It has been that reminder I've needed many times in my life since I heard it. I am NEVER hopeless so long as I have God in my life.
The system is wrought with fraud. I have seen this firsthand. I will paint a picture. This is a true story. As New York City firefighters, we take our apparatus and go to the supermarket to buy food for the meal that day or night. On hundreds of occasions, I personally witnessed people buying Doritos and similar junk food and sugary drinks, like soda and punch. On a few occasions, the cashier would try to tell the purchaser that these foods were not covered. Chaos ensued…every single time. The purchaser would start yelling and throwing a temper tantrum when the manager finally steps in and says, “just let it be”, to the cashier. The SNAP system is supposed to be for NUTRITIOUS food. It’s in the name. But I digress. On one particular occasion at a supermarket in the Bronx on 104th St, a woman was checking out. All junk food and soda. Cashier says nothing. The purchaser’s hair was done up, nails about 3” long, latest iPhone, pays with the EBT card and walks out. Get this shit. She walks into a double parked Infiniti SUV. The balls on these savages! One last story. Same store. We, as firefighters, purchase food with our own money. The ignorance of some city dwellers never ceases to amaze me. Same store, different time. We bought some nice she’ll steaks, veggies, potatoes and a couple of pies for dessert. This complete moron proceeds to say, “ yeah, you firemen eat good, yo, I’d be gettin’ steak if the fire department bought my meals too!” I f*cking lose it, right then and there. “Who told you that? You’re absolutely wrong. This is our money. Go tell all your f*cking friends too, a**hole!” I literally yelled it. My heart rate is increasing cuz I’m actually reliving it while I’m writing this. Like I said previously, the balls on some people and the absolute arrogant ignorance. I’m so glad I’m retired. I had a big mouth that got me in trouble more than once, even when I was a supervisor, I never took any shit from civilian a**holes and it’s not what the brass wanted. I miss my crew, I do miss going to fires, but it’s a young man’s job and I was no longer a young man. You can keep the rest of the bullshit. I have many more of those stories because I saw the fraud daily, every single day. It needs to be overhauled or eliminated. My opinion.
In 1964, when LBJ signed announced his War on Poverty, he said that “the days of living on the dole are gone.”
I had no idea people lived on the dole pre-1964, but boy was he wrong. The War on Poverty has been a disaster, creating more dependency on the government.
Once again, a properly designed "Universal Basic Income" system would eliminate the need for such terrible programs such as SNAP, Social Security and other benefits.
Greater efficiency, no bias, no shame, no disincentive to work.
From everyone. A key point is that everyone gets UBI, including billionaires (now trillionaires), they simply don't need it.
Essentially the taxation system needs a massive reform (eliminate all deductions and credits).
The average person wouldn't even be impacted by a UBI system. So yes, it's taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. Everyone likes Robin Hood don't they? 😇
I'm a capitalist, if you earn it you keep it - fundamentally! But as a society we need to decide what do we want? Zero government, zero taxes? Small government and just a few roads? Bloated corrupt government? (what we have today) Or a trim government that enables it's citizens to have social support without shame, without corruption without "qualification". We already spend the money, so nobody can really tell me we can't afford it. We could cut our spending in half and still fund UBI - win/win!
You just exhibited the fundamental (utopian) misunderstanding of Robin Hood that most have - first, in some stories, Robin Hood was no more than a thief. But in the "rob from the rich to give to the poor" versions, he was actually taking *back* from government the ruthless overtaxation that the people suffered and returning it to them; he wasn't simply taking from those who had to give to those who didn't.
The country got along just fine before income tax was ever instituted, with roads, schools, etc. Realize that, just in order to collect the taxes that would enable UBI, money is lost in administrative overhead and bureaucracy.
But another issue is that people have come to see government as a service organization. That was (at least in America) never the purpose: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, not to provide for them. We need a return to this mindset.
It is through charity, whether through religion, corporate charities, or individuals that we can meet the needs of the truly desperate. But no one is guaranteed a living. There is no such right. We have a right to pursue a living, but no guarantee of making it. But using government to provide it, as I mentioned in the post, amounts to nothing more than robbery. It is taking money from one, by the threat of force, in order to give it to another. You could, in fact, say, it is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is not only unAmerican, it is absolutely immoral.
Just for good measure (to make sure I wasn't blowing smoke with my response), I asked grok (X's AI) about Robin Hood:
Question: Did Robin Hood rob from the rich to give to the poor, or did he rob from a government that oppressively taxed the people in order to give that money back to the people who had been taxed?
Grok's answer:
Thoughts
In the original medieval ballads that form the core of the Robin Hood legend (dating from around 1450), he primarily robbed corrupt government officials and wealthy churchmen—figures who oppressed the common people through heavy taxation and exploitation—and used the spoils to aid specific individuals in need, rather than broadly "giving to the poor."
Key Evidence from the Earliest Sources
Primary targets: Corrupt authorities, not random rich folks.
- Sheriff of Nottingham: The archetypal villain, a royal appointee infamous for ruthless tax collection and enforcement. In A Gest of Robyn Hode (c. 1450–1500, the longest and most influential early ballad), Robin's men infiltrate the Sheriff's castle and steal £300 in coin (tax revenue) plus silverware from his treasury. They throw a massive feast with it, humiliating the Sheriff.
- Monks, abbots, and bishops: Representing the greedy Church, which owned vast lands and squeezed peasants with tithes (taxes). In Robin Hood and the Monk (c. 1450, the oldest surviving ballad), Robin kills a monk carrying abbey funds. In the Gest, he robs a monk of 20 marks (£13+ in silver) to repay a debt for a poor knight, then "doubles" it as interest from "Our Lady."
- Robin explicitly spares poor farmers ("husbonde"), honest yeomen, and good knights/travelers: "Loke ye do no husbonde harme / That tilleth with his ploughe."
What he does with the loot: Helps the oppressed, not mass charity.
- Loans £400 to a "sorrowful knight" ruined by the abbey's usury—no repayment required.
- Funds feasts for his band (merry men, often yeomen).
- The Gest summarizes: "For he was a good outlawe, / And dyde pore men moch god" (did poor men much good)—but no scene shows direct handouts to peasants.
Evolution to the Modern "Rob Rich, Give Poor" Myth
Not in early ballads: No explicit redistribution to "the poor."
- First appears ~1521: Scottish historian John Major writes Robin "took from abbots and... gave to the poor."
- Phrase solidifies later: John Stow's 1592 Annales says he "relieved" the poor by sparing them and robbing the rich. By the 19th century (Victorian era), it's the iconic slogan, amplified by novels, films (e.g., Errol Flynn 1938), and Disney.
Why the "Taxman" Angle Fits Better
The Sheriff and abbots were the "government" oppressors: Sheriffs farmed taxes corruptly under absentee kings (like Richard I or Edward II), pocketing extras. Robin fights this system, returning value to victims like the knight (taxed into poverty). Modern libertarian memes exaggerate it as "gave taxes back to taxpayers," but it's spot-on in spirit—no Robin robs a benevolent rich merchant to feed random beggars.
Bottom line: Your second option nails the original legend. The "rich vs. poor" trope is a feel-good Victorian retrofit. Robin was a yeoman rebel against elite corruption, not a socialist Santa.
bare with me, because I am having a lot of fun in the bible..
matthew 25 33 mentions two animals? It's right before your quoted verses.
πρόβατα to the right
ἐρίφια to the left.
The probata is how they say the first one, which makes me think of probation.
The eriphion is how they say the second one, which makes me think of my dynamic and beautiful ex girlfriend. I did not love the way that ended, and will take it out on everyone now..
if you get into it let's look here real quick, I know nothing to do with SNAP being snipped, suffer me a second.
ἐρίφια kind of looks like this word, εἰρήνην.. and that's sure confusing, because that one they say is eirenen, and means peace.. and again it's all greek to me.
εἰρήνην is the peace bore by one of the three Graces, and sometimes suggested as an import from various other locations.. so what is the ἐρίφια? and why does a goat and a grace sound similar in Greek? Oh man, wait a second.... the lambs are some tribe and goats are Greeks?
I'm a pastor, and this is one of the most grotesque distortions of the Gospel I've ever read.
You want to eliminate SNAP entirely. No replacement. Just end it. That means 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, lose access to food. Your grand solution? "Imagine if people just gave a little!" You think private charity is going to magically produce $113 billion annually to replace SNAP? Food banks are already overwhelmed and can't even handle a single month of need. Your plan isn't charity. It's mass starvation dressed up in Bible verses.
Jesus fed 5,000 people without asking if they had jobs. He didn't check their citizenship status. He didn't lecture them about self-sufficiency or quote James Madison at them. He fed them. Period. When you twist Matthew 25 to argue that helping people through government is somehow not "real" charity, you're spitting on the text. "Whatever you did for the least of these" doesn't come with an asterisk that says "*only counts if done through private organizations."
You call taxation for social programs "robbery" and "pilferanthropy." Know what the Bible actually calls ignoring the hungry? Sin. "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker" (Proverbs 14:31). You want to eliminate the program that feeds millions of children because you're mad your taxes help them. That's not theology. That's just greed.
And your founding fathers worship? The Constitution isn't Scripture. James Madison isn't Jesus. You serve one or the other. Choose.
Jesus didn't say "Let them go hungry and maybe private charity will save them." He said "I was hungry and you fed me." Not "you posted about feeding me online." Not "you wished someone else would feed me." You. Fed. Me.
This isn't Christianity. This is nationalism wearing a cross. You've created an American Jesus who hates the poor and loves property rights. That's an idol. You are going to Hell.
If you're a pastor, then you know, as you yourself quoted, Jesus didn't look to government to feed people. Yes, government taking from one to give to another is robbery. That isn't ignoring the hungry - that is championing justice. Theft is injustice of which God doesn't approve.
If you're a pastor, show me where in Scripture Jesus spoke of forcibly taking from some to give to others. I'll show you where Scripture says giving must not be grudgingly or under compulsion.
Again, as you quoted, Jesus said "*you* fed me." Not "you used government to force others to feed me." Jesus was about personal giving, not government handouts.
TAXATION ISN'T THEFT. Jesus said "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Mark 12:17). He was asked about taxes funding Rome's occupying army, and he said pay it. Paul called tax collectors "ministers of God" (Romans 13:6). Not thieves. God's servants. Your entire argument is built on a lie.
CARING FOR THE POOR WAS MANDATORY IN SCRIPTURE. Leviticus 19:9-10 required landowners to leave harvest edges for the poor. Not optional. Commanded. The Year of Jubilee mandated debt forgiveness every 50 years (Leviticus 25). The third-year tithe was a tax designated for widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). That's government welfare, and God instituted it.
GOD JUDGES NATIONS FOR SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION. "Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees... to turn aside the needy from justice" (Isaiah 10:1-2). Not just individuals. Systems. Ezekiel 16:49 says Sodom fell because "she had excess of food but did not aid the poor and needy." God destroyed an entire city for failing to care for the vulnerable.
THE EARLY CHURCH PRACTICED COMMUNAL SHARING. "All who believed had all things in common... distributing to each as any had need" (Acts 4:32-35). When Ananias held back money, God struck him dead (Acts 5). But sure, tell me how sharing resources is unbiblical.
YOUR THEOLOGY IS LIBERTARIANISM IN A JESUS COSTUME. You've built a faith where property rights matter more than hungry children. Where "taxation is theft" trumps "feed the hungry." That's not Christianity. That's Ayn Rand with a cross.
James 2:15-16: "If a brother is lacking food and you say 'go in peace, be filled' without giving what's needed, what good is that?" You're telling 42 million people "maybe private charity will save you" while opposing the system that feeds them. That's exactly what James condemned.
1 John 3:17: "If anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart, how does God's love abide in him?" You see 16 million children in need and say "end the program." That's closing your heart and calling it biblical.
You weep for my congregation? I weep for yours. You're teaching them that feeding children through taxes is robbery but letting them starve while keeping your money is justice. You're teaching them to worship limited government and sacrifice children on its altar.
I do believe turning it off is the best idea ever- before you throw eggs at me- hear me out.
1). It may be the motivation needed for illegals to go home.
2). I know several families abusing the system and getting SNAP. These folks are unusually obese. LARGE! I do believe it is a healthier option to scale back and eat the basics. You can’t buy soap or paper with snap - think about it- they become unhealthy and are most of the time the sickest and needing the health care so obviously this might be a two fold benefit for them and they don’t even realize it. But one of the reasons our government wants dependence on the government.
3) if They truly needy they can reapply-emergency funds are available.
4). Churches and food banks are more than happy to help- I do believe they do not have because they do not ask.
Get yourself back in the community and get to church. Reach out.
HELP IS AVAILABLE. !
I live in PA and food banks are generous and churches are prevalent.
On two occasions in my lifetime, I asked the gubmint for temporary "help" with all of my financial issues. The desperation that I felt was overshadowed by my intense shame....shame that I had to ask for help.
I am truly resentful about the past 60 years of Welfare As A Career. Illegitimate offspring that are produced to guarantee government benefits makes me furious. We have 4+ generations that have been groomed to expect to be taken care of. They have been told that they're victims and that they are ENTITLED to be taken care of.
In my opinion, these people have been trafficked by the demoncratic party for generations.
As much as I'd like to lay it on the Democrats (and yes, the initiation of it and much of its continuation does fall on their shoulders), no other political party (cough, cough, Republicans) has done anything to fix or end it either.
There have been a few times in my life when I (seriously) "needed" help but the government was never there to help. I struggled and survived (once even losing my home, another time *almost* losing my home).
It would be easy for me to say abolish all of these terrible programs, but there are people who truly need help and we as a society should spread a bit of our wealth around to help them. If I wasn't taxed to death, I could easily support another person.
And therein lies the solution - stop having government tax productive people to support those in need, and instead, let those productive people voluntarily support those in need. That's the way it always worked before government entitlements. But taxes make it more difficult for the generous to do so.
I'll agree our current tax system and government do an absolute horrible job of providing for those in need.
However, I have no assurance that private volunteer support works either. I've read of historical situations and it was absolute hell for those in need. I wouldn't be surprised if most of those people would just "rather die" because the support they got was downright cruel.
There will always be grifters looking to cash in as a charity. With a little research and some personal leg work, you can always find a reputable organization to donate to or needy families to provide direct assistance to. And it is ALWAYS more rewarding than watching welfare being spent on Twinkies, Ho Ho's, and Mountain Dew! Not to mention the sundry other necessities it gets readily spent on daily.
Jefferson warned us that the government that gives us everything is the government that will take it all away.
The Tytler cycle of democracy shows that dependency on the government is the last stage of any democracy before tyranny, and that makes sense – back to Jefferson’s warning.
We used to be charitable people before the government forced us to pay for charity. We are still charitable people, but how many of us now pay for our groceries on plastic – borrowing against our next paycheck? The funds are not there as prices keep going up and wages don't!
Although I agree that it is not the place for the government to take care of people, and it would be a lot better if the government would focus on protecting people v taking care of them, we could certainly reduce fraud and save $$ if we changed SNAP into a warehouse type of distribution where cheap, but (only) nutritious food would be available for the poor, but with the requirement that the able-bodied put in some hours at the warehouse: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/well-snap-yall?r=76q58
It's amazing that every new generation falls for the world's oldest scam: "Put ME in power, and people will never go hungry again! Yes, I know that this plan failed the last time it was tried, but that was because the previous regime did it wrong. But this time I will do it right!"
There are many in government who have done everything possible to eliminate God from our public eye and His guidance in our government. I strongly believe thos is why we are seeing so much evil in our society today. Some say thst our First Amendment says that God has no place in our government. They misinterpret the idea of not having ONE CENTRAL religion or sect. God had a HUGE role in the formation of our government. *I* believe that one cannot have a true moral compass without a belief in God. Man is fallible, God is NOT.
The theme of "it didn't work because they did it wrong" is prevalent in many ideologies surrounding social programs. SocialISM is the one leftists throw out on a regular basis. "If WE changed our government over to a socialist government WE would do things the RIGHT WAY." Like they can guarantee that someone put at the top of the heap WILL NOT become power hungry and corrupt once in power. There are people screaming that Trump is wanting to be "king" and is a "facist" while ignoring the FACT thst EVERY socialist country has had an elected official become a tyrant. Look at what is going on in Venezuela.
The biggest element of socialist government is that the GOVERNMENT is god, and the TRUE God is forced out of society. When people put their faith in MAN rather than GOD they set themselves up for absolute failure.
I saw a scene in a movie (unfortunately I can't remember the title of the film) where a daughter is talking to her mother and said, "I am hopeless." The mother reached across the table and slapped her daughter and said, "Never say you are hopeless. Being hopeless is being without God. Where there is God there is HOPE." That scene has stuck with me for over 2 decades. It has been that reminder I've needed many times in my life since I heard it. I am NEVER hopeless so long as I have God in my life.
Oh I have soooo much to talk about on this subject!
I could probably say much, much more as well. But I try to keep the length of my posts to a reasonable limit for reading time.
The system is wrought with fraud. I have seen this firsthand. I will paint a picture. This is a true story. As New York City firefighters, we take our apparatus and go to the supermarket to buy food for the meal that day or night. On hundreds of occasions, I personally witnessed people buying Doritos and similar junk food and sugary drinks, like soda and punch. On a few occasions, the cashier would try to tell the purchaser that these foods were not covered. Chaos ensued…every single time. The purchaser would start yelling and throwing a temper tantrum when the manager finally steps in and says, “just let it be”, to the cashier. The SNAP system is supposed to be for NUTRITIOUS food. It’s in the name. But I digress. On one particular occasion at a supermarket in the Bronx on 104th St, a woman was checking out. All junk food and soda. Cashier says nothing. The purchaser’s hair was done up, nails about 3” long, latest iPhone, pays with the EBT card and walks out. Get this shit. She walks into a double parked Infiniti SUV. The balls on these savages! One last story. Same store. We, as firefighters, purchase food with our own money. The ignorance of some city dwellers never ceases to amaze me. Same store, different time. We bought some nice she’ll steaks, veggies, potatoes and a couple of pies for dessert. This complete moron proceeds to say, “ yeah, you firemen eat good, yo, I’d be gettin’ steak if the fire department bought my meals too!” I f*cking lose it, right then and there. “Who told you that? You’re absolutely wrong. This is our money. Go tell all your f*cking friends too, a**hole!” I literally yelled it. My heart rate is increasing cuz I’m actually reliving it while I’m writing this. Like I said previously, the balls on some people and the absolute arrogant ignorance. I’m so glad I’m retired. I had a big mouth that got me in trouble more than once, even when I was a supervisor, I never took any shit from civilian a**holes and it’s not what the brass wanted. I miss my crew, I do miss going to fires, but it’s a young man’s job and I was no longer a young man. You can keep the rest of the bullshit. I have many more of those stories because I saw the fraud daily, every single day. It needs to be overhauled or eliminated. My opinion.
In 1964, when LBJ signed announced his War on Poverty, he said that “the days of living on the dole are gone.”
I had no idea people lived on the dole pre-1964, but boy was he wrong. The War on Poverty has been a disaster, creating more dependency on the government.
Perhaps it is time to Give Peace a Chance and End the War on Poverty? https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/give-peace-a-chance-end-the-war-on-9f8?r=76q58
Once again, a properly designed "Universal Basic Income" system would eliminate the need for such terrible programs such as SNAP, Social Security and other benefits.
Greater efficiency, no bias, no shame, no disincentive to work.
Once again I'll ask, from where does government get the money to fund a UBI program?
Frankly, I think there should be shame attached to taking money from government.
From everyone. A key point is that everyone gets UBI, including billionaires (now trillionaires), they simply don't need it.
Essentially the taxation system needs a massive reform (eliminate all deductions and credits).
The average person wouldn't even be impacted by a UBI system. So yes, it's taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor. Everyone likes Robin Hood don't they? 😇
I'm a capitalist, if you earn it you keep it - fundamentally! But as a society we need to decide what do we want? Zero government, zero taxes? Small government and just a few roads? Bloated corrupt government? (what we have today) Or a trim government that enables it's citizens to have social support without shame, without corruption without "qualification". We already spend the money, so nobody can really tell me we can't afford it. We could cut our spending in half and still fund UBI - win/win!
You just exhibited the fundamental (utopian) misunderstanding of Robin Hood that most have - first, in some stories, Robin Hood was no more than a thief. But in the "rob from the rich to give to the poor" versions, he was actually taking *back* from government the ruthless overtaxation that the people suffered and returning it to them; he wasn't simply taking from those who had to give to those who didn't.
The country got along just fine before income tax was ever instituted, with roads, schools, etc. Realize that, just in order to collect the taxes that would enable UBI, money is lost in administrative overhead and bureaucracy.
But another issue is that people have come to see government as a service organization. That was (at least in America) never the purpose: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, not to provide for them. We need a return to this mindset.
It is through charity, whether through religion, corporate charities, or individuals that we can meet the needs of the truly desperate. But no one is guaranteed a living. There is no such right. We have a right to pursue a living, but no guarantee of making it. But using government to provide it, as I mentioned in the post, amounts to nothing more than robbery. It is taking money from one, by the threat of force, in order to give it to another. You could, in fact, say, it is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is not only unAmerican, it is absolutely immoral.
That's a good Grok summary of Robin Hood. Back in those days, most of the rich were the corrupt government (church).
The fundamental of my UBI approach is "robbing from the corrupt government". Taxes would go down, the situation would be more fair.
In Utopia we might be able to count on charities but I've never seen or heard of it working before.
Just for good measure (to make sure I wasn't blowing smoke with my response), I asked grok (X's AI) about Robin Hood:
Question: Did Robin Hood rob from the rich to give to the poor, or did he rob from a government that oppressively taxed the people in order to give that money back to the people who had been taxed?
Grok's answer:
Thoughts
In the original medieval ballads that form the core of the Robin Hood legend (dating from around 1450), he primarily robbed corrupt government officials and wealthy churchmen—figures who oppressed the common people through heavy taxation and exploitation—and used the spoils to aid specific individuals in need, rather than broadly "giving to the poor."
Key Evidence from the Earliest Sources
Primary targets: Corrupt authorities, not random rich folks.
- Sheriff of Nottingham: The archetypal villain, a royal appointee infamous for ruthless tax collection and enforcement. In A Gest of Robyn Hode (c. 1450–1500, the longest and most influential early ballad), Robin's men infiltrate the Sheriff's castle and steal £300 in coin (tax revenue) plus silverware from his treasury. They throw a massive feast with it, humiliating the Sheriff.
- Monks, abbots, and bishops: Representing the greedy Church, which owned vast lands and squeezed peasants with tithes (taxes). In Robin Hood and the Monk (c. 1450, the oldest surviving ballad), Robin kills a monk carrying abbey funds. In the Gest, he robs a monk of 20 marks (£13+ in silver) to repay a debt for a poor knight, then "doubles" it as interest from "Our Lady."
- Robin explicitly spares poor farmers ("husbonde"), honest yeomen, and good knights/travelers: "Loke ye do no husbonde harme / That tilleth with his ploughe."
What he does with the loot: Helps the oppressed, not mass charity.
- Loans £400 to a "sorrowful knight" ruined by the abbey's usury—no repayment required.
- Funds feasts for his band (merry men, often yeomen).
- The Gest summarizes: "For he was a good outlawe, / And dyde pore men moch god" (did poor men much good)—but no scene shows direct handouts to peasants.
Evolution to the Modern "Rob Rich, Give Poor" Myth
Not in early ballads: No explicit redistribution to "the poor."
- First appears ~1521: Scottish historian John Major writes Robin "took from abbots and... gave to the poor."
- Phrase solidifies later: John Stow's 1592 Annales says he "relieved" the poor by sparing them and robbing the rich. By the 19th century (Victorian era), it's the iconic slogan, amplified by novels, films (e.g., Errol Flynn 1938), and Disney.
Why the "Taxman" Angle Fits Better
The Sheriff and abbots were the "government" oppressors: Sheriffs farmed taxes corruptly under absentee kings (like Richard I or Edward II), pocketing extras. Robin fights this system, returning value to victims like the knight (taxed into poverty). Modern libertarian memes exaggerate it as "gave taxes back to taxpayers," but it's spot-on in spirit—no Robin robs a benevolent rich merchant to feed random beggars.
Bottom line: Your second option nails the original legend. The "rich vs. poor" trope is a feel-good Victorian retrofit. Robin was a yeoman rebel against elite corruption, not a socialist Santa.
bare with me, because I am having a lot of fun in the bible..
matthew 25 33 mentions two animals? It's right before your quoted verses.
πρόβατα to the right
ἐρίφια to the left.
The probata is how they say the first one, which makes me think of probation.
The eriphion is how they say the second one, which makes me think of my dynamic and beautiful ex girlfriend. I did not love the way that ended, and will take it out on everyone now..
if you get into it let's look here real quick, I know nothing to do with SNAP being snipped, suffer me a second.
ἐρίφια kind of looks like this word, εἰρήνην.. and that's sure confusing, because that one they say is eirenen, and means peace.. and again it's all greek to me.
εἰρήνην is the peace bore by one of the three Graces, and sometimes suggested as an import from various other locations.. so what is the ἐρίφια? and why does a goat and a grace sound similar in Greek? Oh man, wait a second.... the lambs are some tribe and goats are Greeks?
Who had goats? and why are they on the left?
I'm a pastor, and this is one of the most grotesque distortions of the Gospel I've ever read.
You want to eliminate SNAP entirely. No replacement. Just end it. That means 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, lose access to food. Your grand solution? "Imagine if people just gave a little!" You think private charity is going to magically produce $113 billion annually to replace SNAP? Food banks are already overwhelmed and can't even handle a single month of need. Your plan isn't charity. It's mass starvation dressed up in Bible verses.
Jesus fed 5,000 people without asking if they had jobs. He didn't check their citizenship status. He didn't lecture them about self-sufficiency or quote James Madison at them. He fed them. Period. When you twist Matthew 25 to argue that helping people through government is somehow not "real" charity, you're spitting on the text. "Whatever you did for the least of these" doesn't come with an asterisk that says "*only counts if done through private organizations."
You call taxation for social programs "robbery" and "pilferanthropy." Know what the Bible actually calls ignoring the hungry? Sin. "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker" (Proverbs 14:31). You want to eliminate the program that feeds millions of children because you're mad your taxes help them. That's not theology. That's just greed.
And your founding fathers worship? The Constitution isn't Scripture. James Madison isn't Jesus. You serve one or the other. Choose.
Jesus didn't say "Let them go hungry and maybe private charity will save them." He said "I was hungry and you fed me." Not "you posted about feeding me online." Not "you wished someone else would feed me." You. Fed. Me.
This isn't Christianity. This is nationalism wearing a cross. You've created an American Jesus who hates the poor and loves property rights. That's an idol. You are going to Hell.
If you're a pastor, then you know, as you yourself quoted, Jesus didn't look to government to feed people. Yes, government taking from one to give to another is robbery. That isn't ignoring the hungry - that is championing justice. Theft is injustice of which God doesn't approve.
If you're a pastor, show me where in Scripture Jesus spoke of forcibly taking from some to give to others. I'll show you where Scripture says giving must not be grudgingly or under compulsion.
Again, as you quoted, Jesus said "*you* fed me." Not "you used government to force others to feed me." Jesus was about personal giving, not government handouts.
I weep for your congregation.
You want Scripture? Let's do Scripture.
TAXATION ISN'T THEFT. Jesus said "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Mark 12:17). He was asked about taxes funding Rome's occupying army, and he said pay it. Paul called tax collectors "ministers of God" (Romans 13:6). Not thieves. God's servants. Your entire argument is built on a lie.
CARING FOR THE POOR WAS MANDATORY IN SCRIPTURE. Leviticus 19:9-10 required landowners to leave harvest edges for the poor. Not optional. Commanded. The Year of Jubilee mandated debt forgiveness every 50 years (Leviticus 25). The third-year tithe was a tax designated for widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). That's government welfare, and God instituted it.
GOD JUDGES NATIONS FOR SYSTEMIC OPPRESSION. "Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees... to turn aside the needy from justice" (Isaiah 10:1-2). Not just individuals. Systems. Ezekiel 16:49 says Sodom fell because "she had excess of food but did not aid the poor and needy." God destroyed an entire city for failing to care for the vulnerable.
THE EARLY CHURCH PRACTICED COMMUNAL SHARING. "All who believed had all things in common... distributing to each as any had need" (Acts 4:32-35). When Ananias held back money, God struck him dead (Acts 5). But sure, tell me how sharing resources is unbiblical.
YOUR THEOLOGY IS LIBERTARIANISM IN A JESUS COSTUME. You've built a faith where property rights matter more than hungry children. Where "taxation is theft" trumps "feed the hungry." That's not Christianity. That's Ayn Rand with a cross.
James 2:15-16: "If a brother is lacking food and you say 'go in peace, be filled' without giving what's needed, what good is that?" You're telling 42 million people "maybe private charity will save you" while opposing the system that feeds them. That's exactly what James condemned.
1 John 3:17: "If anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart, how does God's love abide in him?" You see 16 million children in need and say "end the program." That's closing your heart and calling it biblical.
You weep for my congregation? I weep for yours. You're teaching them that feeding children through taxes is robbery but letting them starve while keeping your money is justice. You're teaching them to worship limited government and sacrifice children on its altar.
That's not the Gospel. That's heresy.