Of course Jesus couldn't tell his followers what should they do when they are the government and what taxes are ok or not to establish and how is it ok to spend them, for they were not the government back then so it was kinda irrelevant, and many wars were had over this question.
You are putting words in Jesus's mouth he did not state, that's a sin. Jesus also said things in the old testament when the Jews had an actual state. Can you show where he put a "limit" on taxes? Jesus said through the apostles OBEY THE EARTHLY RULERS unless they order something contrary to God's law, the best argument for a rebellion against the ruler for tax reasons under a christian framework is that if the ruler takes that much it would lead to the people dying and them obeying that is suicide. But that would require some very high taxes in a non rich area.
The representatives are called that not for shits and giggles, but because they are representatives of the sovereign, they have a duty to fulfill the will of "the people" to the best of their knowledge and ability.
Yes that is the job of the representative, hell the absolute monarch has a duty to take care of his people to the best of their knowledge and ability though he does not have to follow their will. But here is the things you are not getting first off the representative does not represent YOU specefically he represents ALL of his constituents you make up less than 1% of that. So the collective as a whole if they don't like it they can vote him out in the next election, but if he got elected once unless he hid many things what he is doing probably is not against the will of most of the people. Also even if most people disliked it in a Republic not everything is up for a vote, the unpopular actions of the leader are still legitimate, unless a recall election is possible and actually done. Until that happens a Christian MUST obey those rules.
The difference is that citizens, unlike Caesar's subjects, have more or less ways to exchange or even punish the representatives for spending the money contrary to their will, up to, and including outright prosecution and sentencing for theft from public treasury.
Well theft from the public treasury was a thing Romans had, and it was probably punished more than we do. But beside the point, first off these actions don't fit stealing from the public treasury. Using funds for something you don't like does not meet the defintion. If isolationists get in power and they prosecute people who were giving things to Ukraine for example, that would not be stealing it's being done openly it's voting on the budget. Just because you don't like how every penny is spent does not give you the right to contest it.
As patriots, they also have a duty to resist rulers who are ruining their country. These are separate and not necessarily contradictory duties.
Thats a very very very fine line. You can't just overthrow the ruler because he is mediocre and you have a better one lined up. Before you can even put into place your coup or treason the leader has to either be committing grave sins himself, making laws hostile to Christianity, or being actively malicious towards his own people and trying to get them to basically sin and suicide themselves. And before all that he should be warned that the effects he is doing are hurting his people and are a sin. And only if he persists THEN it is justifiable to rebel. Not many leaders in history and rebellions were this bad. The American Revolution for example did not reach this standard, the Revolutionary Army sinned and the Founding Fathers sinned greatly.
If you are a total internationalist globalist, sure.
If you aren't, there are priorities.
Ok this is just a shit argument. Show proof that he stole the bread from the mouths of American, that he kicked out Americans already staying there to make room for the immigrants. That's not what happened unless that money was already earmarked for poor Americans and it was taken away you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument. No the money was from a general fund that would go towards anything, roads, the army, other government programs. You say oh that money could have been used to help Americans, yes it could have but would it have been? "Fiscal Conservatives" would have bitched and moaned about anything that helped poor Americans if we took money and used it to build houses for every homeless American they'd bitch and moan. But not for a giant military, not to give lots of cash to other nations.
But as we have established, we have no absolute ruler.
I was responding to your think about Christian charity and an absolute ruler. God will reward senators who vote for helping the poor, and probably won't reward those who instead disdain that and prefer to keep giving more money for our bloated military.
So how much tax revenue does an absolute ruler need to send to the poor of distant lands for it to become a sin rather than virtue?
There is not a set number, I'm not sure if you understand but Christianity is not Judaism or Islam with their meticulous rules. Is the leader giving all the nations wealth to another nation in a parody of colonialism? Anyway let's do a parable how much funds does a father need to send out to other poor families for it to become a sin rather than a virtue? The answer is pretty obvious as long as he is making sure to feed, clothe, and home his own family it is a virtue.