Govt's obligation?

(Claps!)

 

Thanks LadyEagle.

It is our goverment's. We made it so. The people spoke.

Take it off them. It is the job of government not exploiters.
Our private pension schemes have all gone belly up. Not mine, I have never had one. Many are finding that they have a lot less than they were led to believe.

How can a thing be 100%? I think the number of people, either 10,000 or 20,000 I can't remember, died because they went into a hospital last year! They are dangerous places at the best of times, even more so if you ain't sick.
And I have learnt a trick to use if you want attention faster, it is not to have a good insurance policy, it's get hurt more. The more serious cases are taken first and they probably will be out and back home faster than the minor cases.
But people do moan so much and bring the welfare state down till it appears other than what it is. It is a caring attitude and befits Christians to be so minded, in my opinion.

Comparable to any other medical system I'd wager. The standards of our professionsal medical staff is second to none. Is that not so?
Improvements are needed. Don't lose sight of the fact that the right wing and the left wing had been alternating since the war. It has been one step forward one step back. There is a change afoot. The right wing of our political system is in collapse. I cannot see Blair losing the next election. We are winning the class struggle and it is making for a fairer society.

Not as long as it takes to save up to see one I bet!

I am satisfied 100%. I never go near our professional medical staff except my wife and I don't let her near my ailments. I reckon I'll only make one mistake in not seeing a doctor. All the rest I'll recover from.
I think that is part of the problem. People go to the doctor for the slightest sniffle. The system gets bogged down a bit by people that just seem to want reassurance. It can't be that bad anyway or you would not hear so much complaining!

johnp.

 

Hello Monergist. Pleased to meet you.

And what happens when you do not care but disorder. If they do not receive the crumbs from our tables they will take whatever they need and want.
It is the responsibility of government to do good. Keeping order and caring about all of it's citizens is doing good. Is this keeping the tradition, 'complaining about taxes', I hear? From the Church!

With respect, that is what you say. The verse, "For he is God's servant to do you good." Rom 13:4 is a direct reference for a redistribution of wealth.

And is it to be cap in hand and call them Squire? Not here it won't be again. The poor are the first ones called upon to defend their country. The country owes the poor. Trickle down?
With me, this is tied up with our class war. Maybe living in a meritocracy gives one a different outlook. Do you Americans believe you live in a meritocracy? I don't know.
If we have Christians in government, or Christians appealing for a more equal share of the common wealth. Steering the country towards a more caring for the less blessed then the Church is fulfilling it's calling to care adequately without partiality to the poor. Why should it be good to rely on uncertain charity, cap in hand, humiliation, when we can serve our society by all contributing for all. All share this blessing.
As I said, it is tied up in me with my class war. I'll doff my cap to no man and call a man sir if I respect him not because I have to. We are winning. There will be a fight if they try to retake the ground they have lost. Thatcher found that out.

johnp.

 

When it comes to the game of catching bullets the poor will always have the greatest share. If lead were legal tender they could feed themselves fairly well I would guess. But, then maybe the poor are just greedy when it comes to spending their lives so rich men can eat dainty little cakes and sip rare wines.

 

No, I actually pay over $400 every month to have insurance to cover the medical bills. After that I don't have enough to cover my meds and that is where TennCare picks it up. Interesting fact: I had to pay $1,400 in one lump payment with 10 days notice to have the TennCare reinstated this year. I only make $7.50 an hour, so I had to borrow the money from my grandparents and then I had to pay them back!!

 

I am a TennCare recipient right now and had to pay out the rear to get it. All the insurance companies won't touch me because I am a transplant patient and I can't wait for the 1 to 2 year period to pass without receiving medical care. I have already had 3 hospital stays this year that racked up tremendous bills. I feel like I must be a burden to everyone!!

 

With respect, that is what you say. The verse, "For he is God's servant to do you good." Rom 13:4 is a direct reference for a redistribution of wealth.

</font>[/QUOTE]I know of no sound commentator or expositor that agrees with your assessment of this verse.

I think John Gill's statements on this verse are especially good, regarding the state's God-given duties.."for civil good, for the preservation of men's properties, estates, rights, and liberties, which would be continually invaded, and made a prey of by others; and for spiritual and religious good, as many princes and magistrates have been;"

 

FBC,

Don't feel like you are a burden. I know it must be hard but just hang in there.

 

Hello Monergist.

Well that is strange. Sounds quite reasonable to me. "For he is God's servant to do you good." Rom 13:4 is a direct reference for a redistribution of wealth. Logic dictates here. Rome had it's bread and circuses.
What would your choice be? What happens when charity dries up?

Redistribution of wealth is a scriptural imperative. 'Give' stands out in scripture.
DT 24:19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.
Our sister Ruth was on welfare.
We should not gamble with the welfare of others who are not in a postion to help themselves. They should be guaranteed at least a minimum existence. One thing for certain, when a person needs a next meal they will do anything to get it. It is your governments responsibility to not only subdue violence in society but to be proactive in the prevention of it. Recession can hit us at any moment. What are the unemployed to do then when their numbers are in the ten of millions and society become like Sodom;
Eze 16:49 " `Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Exactly what I have been saying. The invasions will get more and more the more people find themselves disenfranchised. The governement can advoid revolution by the way it treats it's poorer citizens. That would bring good to all the people.

johnp.

 

The government cannot give money to one person without taking it from another person.

The government cannot give everything to everybody, or even a sizable portion of the population.

Limited welfare programs we can afford(regardless of their suspect constitutionality). To go beyond that will bankrupt us as a country.

 

How so? As social programs (excluding SS) make up a fairly small part of our budget, why should we fear better funding for them, especially when conservatives are all in a titter about waging expensive wars with expensive weaponry?

 

Hello FBCPastorsWife.

Thanks for your reply.
It has shocked me.
I knew there was problems with social welfare in the States but to see it in black and white, first hand, really has shocked me.

I am at a loss for words to be honest. It is such an alien concept. To have to mess with money to ensure medical treatment.

My daughter was taken ill in town a few weeks ago. She had a liver infection. She'd had an operation a couple of years ago on her liver.
Her boyfriend who was with her phoned an ambulance and within 15 minutes she was in hospital with pipes going in and out of her.

If that happened over there would her insurance policy be checked first to see if she would receive medical treatment?

Blair had to have an operation recently. He jumped the queue of course but he went to a Nation Health Service hospital like the rest of us. We should be proud of achieving at least one command of God, not that it was not a gift from God, to care for the poor and needy. Sorted! It was sorted by Christians from all denominations and atheistic humanitarians after a hundred years of struggle. Praise the Lord.

I can imagine. I hear phrases like 'government handouts' to mean a put down on the recipient. It is a put down on the poor for being poor.
What happens if you cannot pay for life saving drugs, that is not it is it?
I cannot imagine a society with God on it's lips that would leave you to die or at the mercy of uncertain charity?

johnp.

 

Hello KenH.

Constitutional hurdles can be overcome if the will is there to aid the poor. The laws of the nation cannot be used to negate the word of God. Production increases with those slackers, who do not want to work, not wasting their employers time. European nations are not bankrupt because of their caring for the poor. Some, those that had very high standards, have had to cut back on some of the benefits, but it does not break a country. It builds it.

That is the point. That all the people contribute for the security of all the people. Community.

Your argument is wrong. If there is no safety net when that critical mass is reached what then? When the population reaches that sizable portion then the wealthy lose everything and sometimes their heads.

Why was Bush getting the blame for loss of jobs. If a governments fiscal policies interfers with employment, unemployment was used by Thatcher to control the economy here in Britain, then they must take the responsiblity to care for those that suffer because of it. The country benefitted from many unemployed.

johnp.

 

Hello billward.

For the greater good put up with some leeches. I hear this as an excuse not to give.
It's peanuts man and the returns are enormous, " MAL 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, `How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse--the whole nation of you--because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. 12 "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.

It is a state of heart. I cannot understand the resistance to social security.
It has disturb me. A strange feeling. Very interesting.

johnp.

 

National defense is one of the few constitutional duties given to the federal government.

We have spent trillions of dollars on the "War on Poverty" since the mid-1960's and the percentage of people living below the poverty line is pretty much the same now as forty years ago. Taxpayer largesse cannot solve the poverty problem beyond a small, limited amount.

 

Unlike ya'll in England, we have a written constitution in these United States that the federal government should legally abide by.

 

Forced "charity" is not charity. It is raw governmental power.

 

KenH

No one can be locked into a constitution.
What law is it that says the government cannot use tax payers money in the way it decides?

Yet you say they have spent trillions in poverty relief. So is it a constitutional thing or not? Have your governments, since the sixties, been breaking the law?
Was it because the governments, Democrats and Republicans, were obeying their instruction from God, "Do good to the people."?

Social Security is not 'largesse'. It is the bare minimum that a person needs to keep their soul and body together.

2 : liberal giving or assistance especially when accompanied by condescension from a superior to an inferior or from one of higher rank or status to one of lower
"largess." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (14 Nov. 2004).

And shall we call you Squire then? That is the attitude we overcame.

And where is the difference between defending your people against an outside threat to their lives and an internal threat, one of starvation, deprivation and squalor. There is no difference.

I heard Bush mention something about, 'No child left behind." I assumed it meant free education for all. Is it? Do you have to pay for education now? I don't know.

No it is not charity it is cooperation. Help when you need it and not from charity but social security. Arrived at by consensus. When my father came back from killing Germans he and his generation swept aside the old order of begging. They voted for the Labour Party who promised them free education, free health care and free money if they did not have any! A descent place to live and a pension when they reached the age when no one calls you lazy for doing nothing. Safety guaranteed from the cradle to the grave.
I object to condescension. But that is just the rebel in me. I am working class and Socialist to boot. I am involved in a class war. I defer to no man. It's not charity, it is dignity.

johnp.

 

1)If we are going to have a nation of laws, then the government must be.

2)Yes.

3)Yes, the government schools are paid for by the taxpayers.

4)Call it what you will, I still disagree with it. I refuse to promote the State over the individual.