Again.  It's the collective will of the people.  Which is a totally different thing from Christianity which focuses on the will and actions of the individual.

If free will and choices weren't important, we wouldn't have them.

What you stated there I believe is a very stripped down version of what Christianity is about.  In Christianity, there is also a focus on people collectively doing things.  Christianity isn't just a religion of individuals wishes and whims and wants, and commands.  There is a respect for individuals, but in a framework of community.  The American expression of Christianity is not the full expression of Christianity.  There is ample scripture of this.  This focus even turns charity into something to show the worth of the giver, rather than a way to help the person in need.  This focus is hard pressed to fit into a Christian framework at all.  If you want to get into scripture, tradition, or post-scriptural writings that show that Christianity is something focused on individual as its main thrust, please do so.  I could do otherwise here.  

And this does connect to the initial issue which looks theologically at the role of government. 

I will also say, according to Reform theology, free will and choice can be myths.  Things are the way they are, because God makes it so, right down to someone being part of the elect.  And in this, Christian beliefs can still function.  

What so ever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.  Matthew 25:40

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Matthew 7:12

The meek shall inherit the earth.  Matthew 5:5

There is no bible verse that I'm aware of that praises the hoarding of wealth to allow the poor to starve and die.  But there are verses that suggest they will find it harder to reach Heaven for doing so.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.  Matthew 19:23-24

Among those who are even remotely Christian, this isn't a debate point.  What is subject to debate is whether or not the government is to be involved with it or not.  Of course there are those who claim to be Christian, for whom the poor and those in need, aren't of any concern.

Except, you totally miss the forest from the trees in your analysis.

The focus turns charity in somethign to show worth to the giver rather then a way to help the person in need.

That's exactly my point.

When you are specifically forcing people to donate to charity, you specifically get rid of said distinctions.

Is Joe Selfish dude suddenly a better person because he pays taxes to help the poor when if he wasn't forced to pay those taxes he wouldnt' do so?

Of course not!

In no way would it foward the judgement of a person, and furthermore if anything could hinder a person's spirtual development because they tend to start looking at taking care of the poor as "the governments job..." and then you get arguements where people suggest that supporting more government charity is the same as giving of yourself, which ignores the point that the reason it shows off the worth of the giver... it's because THEY sacrifice.

I mean, what's a sign of sacrifice, giving of yourself without thought for yourself.

Also, if your going with the "Everything is predestined and God's plan" view of Christianity then everything from welfare to the fucking holocaust was god's plan.  So I mean... pointless thread.

Where do you get the idea that the purpose of giving in the Christian religion is so the giver can show their worth?  Where is it that?  You see in Matthew 6, for example, where the idea of the worth of the given isn't something that factors into this at all:

1“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

If there is to be any focus here on anything, it is about making manifest who God is, and giving a reflection of that which God wants given.  People are merely deliver folk for the blessings God gives.  It is for the glory of God in this, not the glory of the giver, or any means of the giving proving anything to God.  Matthew 5 goes into this distinction:

14“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The focus on giving is to help those in need, out of love for them.  It is giving without expecting something in return.  It isn't about you, it is about others.  It is helping others.  The idea is to get people help.  If the focus is, in any way, on the giver, then the point is lost.  In this, it is written God judges by the heart, and the real reason for doing things.  All you wrote above is irrelevant to this discussion, particularly if the issue is on how the poor are helped, rather than the wonderful state of the giver and how generous they are. 

As far as your other point, you brought up free will and choice, which my reply was to show that this is irrelevant to the discussion here, because there is deterministic Christian theological framework, which still is able to deal with helping the poor.  

To show your worth... to god and to follow his will.  That should of been common sense in the context in which I was speaking.

Again, you make my point for me do you not?

"Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

If you take that as true, in what way could government welfare be of god, when it is the most visible form of "charity" there is?

If the point was to simply have nobody be poor.  God would have created a system where nobody was poor.  Rather then have a system made by man that creates poor people.

Nor does the fact that dertiministic christians exist disprove anything, since again... that would just make EVERYTHING god's will, making this a pointless thread to start with.

Another part of this comes in, about God judging nations.  While the individualist modern western thought seems to shy away from the concept of people being collectively part of groups, and being judged because you are part of a group, and what it does, you see in the Bible, and even in the places of the Mideast, the concept of people being members of tribes and being judged by what the group does collectively.  There is a whole line of thought, theological, and political connected with this.  It is a line of thought, foreign to people who have modern western thought actually, wondering how the heck people in the Mideast could be angry at someone for just being an American, with people thinking, "Hey, I am not responsible for what my country does".  it is a collective guilt that happens due to what your group has done or failed to do.  It isn't about you at all.  It is much bigger in the Old Testament texts, but you also see it in the New Testament texts.

In light of this, being judged collectively, for who you are part of, it is entirely possible you can build a case of Christians being judged because the nation they are part of didn't look after the poor.  The degree of guilt that Christian would come under would be based on their compliance with this lack of concern and their interest in fighting against it, and that could even come down to whether or not they support or oppose welfare programs the state has.  Again, it is another angle on the original question.  It is said that sins of omission do exist after all.

Except... in most cases in which god does judge collectivly... he always had exceptions...

and It is specifically stressed that in such groups that it is the INDIVIDUAL corruption of basically every single person there that led to it.

IE Sodomites were ALL uncharitable.  That outside Lot, if a begger came to their door, not one person outside of Lot would of helped that beggar.

Setting up a system where charity becomes "of the government" would seem to ENCOURAGE not DISCOURAGE such behavior.

Afterall if Welfare is the government's job, I don't have to worry about that homeless guy on the street.  It's surely the government who is letting him down... and not myself afterall.

Additionally, such cases basically came all Pre-JC.

Not that it matters since that if basically anyone who lived in a first world nation truly held themself to the Christian view of charity they'd all likely fall short.  Even the people in the poor who are poor.

Your average somalian would kill to be poor in the US.

Charity is a responsibility of the fortunate.  Regardless of whether or not your taxes pay for the charity of welfare, your responsibility to the welfare of your brother is still there.  Meaning, a good Christian decent human being doesn't assume that because they've paid their taxes that their responsibility to the welfare of their neighbor ceases to exits.  There are plenty of opportunities to give of yourself in the service of others.

There is, obviously a flip-side to this, those in need should seek out industry, rather than remain idle. 

Welfare is a good, even in the face of instances of abuse.  If we are to believe that welfare is evil because there are people who abuse it, then so too is Christianity because there are people who have abused their power as church leaders in the name of their faith and congregation, yet no one (OK there are some outspoken atheists who may) thinks Christianity should be abolished.

Regardless of who commits it, or in what context, a sin is an act of the individual, not a result of the good.  There are many evils that organized religion have brought onto the world, but without religion I doubt civilization would have developed to what we have today, nor would we have our Western values.  The evils are not a result of the good, they are the result of the individual that seeks to take advantage of a good for their own gain. 

My opinion, I think clearly, is that welfare is an inherent good.