Govt's obligation?

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
They voted for the Labour Party who promised them free education, free health care and free money if they did not have any!

But it's not free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to be pay for it unless you folks in England have figured out how to create these items out of thin air.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
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.

Actually, the difference is that our federal constitution gives the federal government to do the former but not the latter.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Was it because the governments, Democrats and Republicans, were obeying their instruction from God, "Do good to the people."?

The Ten Commandments and the gospel were given to individual people to obey, not the government. The government cannot come to Jesus in repentance and faith and live with Him forever.

 

[johnp.]

KenH.

3)Do you have to pay for education now?
3)Yes, the government schools are paid for by the taxpayers.

And is that constitutional?

4)No it is not charity it is cooperation.
4)Call it what you will, I still disagree with it. I refuse to promote the State over the individual.

Does that go for all your taxes or just those that might go to the poor and needy?

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

It is paid for by contributions made by everyone. Even if you have contributed nothing you are still entitled to freedom from hunger, free medical treatment and a place to live. That is dignity for all of us.

Actually, the difference is that our federal constitution gives the federal government to do the former but not the latter.

Then your federal constitution flies in the face of God. What's the difference between a threat to life and limb from outside and a threat to body and soul from the inside was the question.

The Ten Commandments and the gospel were given to individual people to obey, not the government.

I am under the impression that many of your Presidents were Christian. If that is so then it is hardly difficult to see God working through them to bring relief to the poor and needy and stuff the law. You try to nullify God's word by your law!
The government is made up of individuals. It is not a something else. The Christians will do what they can naturally because God is at work to bring honour to Himself through us.

1)No one can be locked into a constitution.
1)If we are going to have a nation of laws, then the government must be.

I do not believe you will ever get control over those in power. Their role is to act outside the law at times. Expediency is the name of the game. The end in view is the good of the country.
You do not want your leaders to lead but be led but no leader will ever be led. It is not in them. They come fitted for their office.

There are too many trying to gain power. You are divided and will fall.

johnp.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Even if you have contributed nothing you are still entitled to freedom from hunger, free medical treatment and a place to live.

Not from the government of these United States. You will find no such thing in the U.S. constitution. You can read our federal constitution here - www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
And is that constitutional?

For the federal government, no. But the constitutions for the individual States may make it constitutional for a particular State. In my State of Arkansas the State constitution requires that the State government, through the taxpayers, provide educational opportunities.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
You are divided and will fall.

Sound like sour grapes on your part since England fell long, long ago.

 

[johnp.]

Even if you have contributed nothing you are still entitled to freedom from hunger, free medical treatment and a place to live.

I am sorry KenH. I shall rephrase that.

Even if we have contributed nothing we are still entitled to freedom from hunger, free medical treatment and a place to live.

 

[LadyEagle]

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!!

I am so sorry to hear of this! Bless your heart! Hang in there, Sister, you are not a burden to everyone. Cling to Romans 8:28. You will be in my prayers - I pray God will work a miracle and heal you!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Even if we have contributed nothing we are still entitled to freedom from hunger, free medical treatment and a place to live.

Not from taxpayer largesse.

Perhaps you folks in England do not believe that the individual, not the State, is sovereign as we do here in these United States.

 

[johnp.]

Squire KenH.

Sound like sour grapes on your part since England fell long, long ago.

I have nothing but the best regards for you and the people of your nation. Western Europe owes a great debt to you lot for the stand you took, in your nations interest, against the Soviet Union. I am very glad of the special relationship between our two countries. It is definitely in our best interests.

In my State of Arkansas the State constitution requires that the State government, through the taxpayers, provide educational opportunities.

And do you think that wrong?

Perhaps you folks in England do not believe that the individual, not the State, is sovereign as we do here in these United States.

I know what you mean but it is illusion, an idea you have of becoming sovereign.
In England there are some that think of God as Sovereign. He says care.
He says have a care you don't 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.
I would be failing in my duty to stay silent.

johnp.

 

[poncho]

Hate to tell ya this Ken but we Americans have long ago fallen into the collectivist mind set.

The individual doesn't matter to anyone anymore, it's what's best for the group now. Listen close you can hear it in speeches everyday. Welcome to the NWO.

"Out of the chaos a New World Order can emerge" G.H.W. Bush.

 

[poncho]

Resistance is futile.

 

[LadyEagle]

Yup.

We are merely pawns.

 

[poncho]

Maybe the word chattel would be more accurate LE.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by johnp.:
And do you think that wrong?

No, it is constitutional within the State of Arkansas.

 

[johnp.]

Hello KenH.

I've just started on The Constitution of the United States of America and found tis in the preamble, "...promote the general welfare...[/B

Can this not be construed to mean the the state has a responsibilty to offer social security instead of relying on charities to feed it's people?

johnp.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by JesusandGeorge04:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
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? </font>[/QUOTE]This war is not a "conservative" war. The war is not a political issue. The non-Republicans were defeated soundly in the last election by a small majority with 3 1/2 million more votes. The meltdown among the opponents of the GOP is reaching a fever stage. One can see why the opponents of the GOP lost by reading their current posts of nothing but sour grapes.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by KenH:
National defense is one of the few constitutional duties given to the federal government.

Ummm... never said it wasn't; I simply find it puzzling why conservatives wish for such unbelievable overkill.

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.

We have spent FAR less on poverty than we have of weapons of mass destruction; what we have spent may have presented the poor from going further into the gutter, and better programs could equal better opportunities for those who have been abandonded by conservative policies.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by KenH:
Forced "charity" is not charity. It is raw governmental power.

For the good of the needy. That's bad?