Paradoxes abound.
What's truly amusing is that many that obsess over the far right's government-pass-through non-charity are in the bottom two quintiles. They pay essentially no federal income tax and are proud of doing their humanitarian or Xian duty by having the government help the needy. In other words, they like forcing others to contribute (sometimes in Jesus' name) and then saying they did it. The tax burden that's so high for the poor is a tax burden that many exult in--they're "investing" in Social Security and "purchasing" a right; in this they really are helping retirees, because these days about 100% of what is paid in FICA, including the half paid by the employee, is immediately paid out to current retirees and disabled. The rest of the bottom two quintiles' tax burden is sales tax, but we have no federal sales tax.
If I wanted to be snarky, I'd say that their Jesus was all about forcing the rich to pay. Oddly, I see two strains in the narrative. The first is that the rich are called upon to pay, but not forced--even violations of the Law against God weren't to be punished, and people were called upon to be the same: Don't judge, but forgive. If you're wronged, don't go to court over it. If you've wronged, go the extra mile in seeking forgiveness. The second strain is that when applying the Law, it was to be done justly, which is to say, you don't favor the poor in a legal judgment because he's poor, you don't favor the rich in a legal judgment because he's rich: The tendency was to oppress the poor in judgment and to let the rich off easy. The opposite is also not a Jesus-approved mode of corruption.
People also tend to like to cite the "help the stranger," ignoring two things. First, the stranger had no family or friends in the new country, and typically was faced with really dire straits. Leaving was pretty much the only course of action, there was no place in their home area to go to or to turn to, and where they went to was pretty much the nearest or only option. This was painful; it was not common. Few strangers that were refugees from Persia made it to Israel, and not so many Greeks. People from Egypt, Babylon, possible from parts of Anatolia would show up. Otherwise, the strangers tended to be colonialists or oppressors, and there's a lot of talk about outsiders oppressing the natives. Mostly, if you seek safety, you stop when you're safe. Second, the stranger was under strict injunction: There was to be one law for the stranger and for the native born, and it was specifically talking about the theocratic law. In other words, they were expected to assimilate to the dominant (theocratically imposed) culture. In Jesus' day there was a big debate over the influence of Greek thinking in Jewish thought; he largely skirted that, but used Greek ideas fairly nonjudgmentally when it made a point, while still letting the point stand that the Law was the law and outsiders were outsiders. At times it's not obvious: When a herd of swine are driven into the water, what's not apparent is that swine are being raised (not by Jews, but by those settled by Greeks and Romans) in what used to be Israelite territory, and it's okay to strip them of their livelihood. That loss of his herd might well have bankrupted that poor outsider, but you know, Jesus didn't care. In most ways he went with the Pharisees, if you look carefully. But outsiders had riven the polity and caused great chaos. Even inclusion of a related nation, the Edomites, led to a mixed marriage that produced Herod; he was half-Idumean.
= new reply since forum marked as read