[DannyTN]

By the way, the precedent was set by the Continental congress. That provided land grants to build schools and colleges. Much of the land in the grants was sold off and the proceeds used to build the schools. Northwest act

[Finny]

Point taken -- except of course in that those weren't so much taking care of the poor as they were taking care of America's own. Perceive the difference. Those acts were more along the lines of infrastructure's good, not expressly for the poor, the ignorant, the indigent, the unemployed. Today's charity via government is amoral. As a result, it nourishes sloth, covetousness, and promiscuity.

I say again: delivery of charity, taking care of the poor among us, is a moral act, an act of charity offered as such and received as such. When government doles out charity, it is a) funded by force and b) amoral. It is extended as an entitlement and received as one.

It is one illustration of how the force of government -- government is solely a force -- should be used conservatively, sparingly. Used in excess, it becomes consuming, "a dangerous servant and a fearful master," as George Washington supposedly said. It's a political principle, to strive to keep government to a minimum. That is the only thing I'll vote for anymore.

The Federal government's role should be minimal and I believe it should be recognized and embraced that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. That's the crux of conservatism, to me. The less government, the more people can live morally.