I especially like (*read like with sarcasm*) the principle of Congress doling out cash to charities and then hanging their hats on how generous THEY are (and the people of the USA as a sidenote), but if they were truly generous they wouldn’t be handing out our money, but their own instead.

Heavens, no! Pres. Benson’s “The Proper Role of Government” clarifies the evils and inherent fallacy of socialism. What right does anybody have to take my hard-earned goods and give them to another by force?

Yes – it’s good for citizens and the United States that the government stay out of our wallets and lives as much as possible. How many codes, policies, laws, and regulations control our lives these days? You can’t start any sort of private enterprise without first getting the government’s stamp of approval. We must separate the idea of the “United States” from the government—they are not one and the same.

By reducing government size and spending, individual enterprise and prosperity will increase which will in turn benefit the country at large. That’s why, in our current system of government, free enterprise capitalism works wonders. Adam Smith, whom you quoted earlier, agrees:

…every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Not really, if one understands that we’re talking about the welfare of the country and not the people. It’s not the “general welfare of the citizens of the United States”…

(Why is the “W” in Welfare capitalized here?)

Interesting question. I believe it’s because it’s a god-given right (a self-evident truth). Check out the capitalized words in the Preamble and see if you notice the pattern:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As per what Uncle Sam is allowed to spend our money on, I firmly agree and stand with the platform of the Constitution Party on this issue:

A legitimate and primary purpose of civil government is to safeguard the God-given rights of its citizens; namely, life, liberty, and property. Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded. We call upon Congress and the President to stop all federal expenditures which are not specifically authorized by the U. S. Constitution, and to restore to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has usurped.

Now some might say “well any powers not prohibited by the Constitution are still okay”, but the 10th Amendment assigns all such powers to the States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

The amazing feat of the Constitution was to tear down power from the executive and localize it as much as possible. There has been a dangerous trend reversing this intent of the Founding Fathers, as our executive now has an astonishing amount of power.