Govt's obligation?

[JesusandGeorge04]

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

Even if that individual has been starving, abandoned by other individuals?

Sounds like a philosophy of excuses.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by church mouse guy:
This war is not a "conservative" war. The war is not a political issue.

Huh? This is absurd! Waging a conflict on spurrious grounds for the benefit of corporate backers is definitely a political issue that implicates the conservatives in horribly immoral conduct!

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.

There is no meltdown amongst those doing God's will in loving and caring for our neighbors; the selfish will fall eventually.

 

[billwald]

The money spent on the "War on Poverty" is approx equivalent to our national debt.

 

[billwald]

Social Security is a pure welfare system. Time to admit it and cap the payments to people who don't need it.

The payroll tax is a capped, flat income tax - the kind of tax that Republicans like. It has no connection to the SS paynents. Time to admit it.

" MAL 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. . . .

We are not under the OT Law. We have tithed to our local church because we are not freeloaders and have never missed a meal or a dry roof. Except when camping.

 

[billwald]

(Seems to me)G.B. ran the world for 200 years and did a first class job of it. After WW2, G.B. was warn out, tired, and voluntarially gave up the empire.

The USofA ran the world fo 50 years and did a first rate job. Now we are tired of it. Let the EU take over.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by billwald:
We are not under the OT Law. We have tithed to our local church because we are not freeloaders and have never missed a meal or a dry roof. Except when camping.

Many do miss meals... and it's not their choice. What of them?

Excuses... read Matt 25:31-46.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

JesusandGeorge04 said

Waging a conflict on spurious grounds for the benefit of corporate backers is definitely a political issue that implicates the conservatives in horribly immoral conduct!

You can’t be talking about the current war in Iraq fought for our own national security and for the benefit of not only millions of Iraqi and Unites States Citizens but also for the political stability of the mideast and the security of nations throughout the world. The only immoral conduct has been on the part of those who would leave the Iraqi people to die without a stable form of government or leave our soldiers in harms way without the support and tools to be successful in their mission.

Back to the topic of this post, I think it is obvious that we spend way to much tax payer money on supporting those who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. How about II Thes 3:10

this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now we use this when it comes to church benevolence, why would it not apply to government handouts.

 

[LadyEagle]

Where is it written that the government of the United States (meaning taxpayers) is an everflowing, ever nourishing, all sufficient mammary gland?

 

[johnp.]

Hello North Carolina Tentmaker.

Back to the topic of this post, I think it is obvious that we spend way to much tax payer money on supporting those who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. How about II Thes 3:10

this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Now we use this when it comes to church benevolence, why would it not apply to government handouts.

Then you must be willing to spend ten times more on your own personal safety.

A man needs food, warmth, clothing and shelter. It's as simple as that. It should not be left to feelings. Benevolence has no place alongside dignity.
Is this benevolence guaranteed? Only the state is in a position to guarantee benevolence.
There are abusers of our system. Takes a lot of work to screw anything from the state. There are not too many scroungers. Among them are artists of all kinds being supported by the rest of their society. That a hidden benefit. Some sign on and receive money even though they work on the side. So what? That is nothing to do with it. God will judge them. This is to do with it, "...He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." You never know when it's going to be your turn to doff your cap.
I can remember one case many years ago where a young lad was convicted by the courts for refusing to work. I can only remember it happening once. I suppose they considered the fact that giving them 40 quid a week was cheaper than locking them up for 300 quid a week.
No, the government must ensure all have the basic necessities without a means test. God ensured that the Israelites had their plot of land.
We receive unemployment benefit for the first year. No questions asked but if you left or were sacked. Sacked means you get it. Left of your own accord means a means test and social security payments with regular interviews to see where you are at with getting a job. That was the way it was when I was a customer of theirs.
Unemployment came to an end for me after I became a Christian and was employed as a Church caretaker. I'd had, courtesy of Thatcher, fives year off work and had enjoyed my time among the underclass very much.
What would I have become if the safety net was not there? Desperate?

But that is just another excuse LadyEagle;

Where is it written that the government of the United States (meaning taxpayers) is an everflowing, ever nourishing, all sufficient mammary gland?

The preamble of The Constitution of the United States of America, ...promote the general welfare...

You seem to think that if there was a social security law then everyone would stop working. There are few scroungers. That is why there is so much credit around. They know the figures regarding fraudulent people. Credit would not work if there was many that took advantage.
I asked the question last night. Does that ...promote the general welfare... not mean what it says? Then promote: 1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : RAISE -- opposed to demote b :
"promote." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (15 Nov. 2004)

Do you rebel against your constitution?

johnp.

 

[johnp.]

Hello billwald.

The money spent on the "War on Poverty" is approx equivalent to our national debt.

There is a national debt that takes the form of love. Your nation has a debt of love to all it's citizens.
I had a look at TennCare yesterday. It looks as if it is in disarray.
Since one of the reasons offered for neglecting, a simple to resolve command of God, is that welfare costs too much, I feel welfare costs too much if it is missing. Since one of the reasons offered for neglecting the poor is that they cost too much then you must ask yourself how we afford it. Are we richer in Europe than our cousins from the New World?
Scratch one excuse and get those in charge to see how it is done by Europe.

" MAL 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. . . ."

Thank God for that. I know we are not under law. It is to do with the heart.
As I said earlier about 'handouts', these sort of phrases 'free loaders', are judgements made about all involved in claiming relief. It belittles and condemns. We have it here when a man has to 'sign on' for benefits. It never happens when someone needs medical treatment. Medical treatment is used by all. There is an hypocricy in our society.
This is not to do with giving to the Lord as part of our charity. It is to do with not taking another man's dignity away.
It is to do away with the poor not having to go 'cap in hand'. It's demeaning enough for a working man to have to seek unemployment benefits, that are state sponsered and for which he has contributed, let alone put himself in a position where he depends on his neighbour for food.

After WW2, G.B. was warn out, tired, and voluntarially gave up the empire.

A strange thing The British Empire. It's now called the Commonwealth of Nations and has a population of about 2 billion people from 5o odd countries. The poor in Britain were treated no better during our countries turn than we treated those we dispossessed. Deference was expected.

The USofA ran the world fo 50 years and did a first rate job. Now we are tired of it.

Now don't go saying things like that. Your country has been given power to do good. Your country's policy of isolationism before the Second World War was just as bad as our policy of appeasement. You must shoulder as a nation the great good you can do. Good will not come from extremist Muslims. You must not leave the field open for dogs to control peoples lives, or the French.

Let the EU take over.

My understanding of the situation is that the EU is the Beast. The iron and clay feet of that statue in Daniel. But that is just my belief.
If it was in us as a nation to side against our friends and to put them in their place the EU would be a serious threat to your country's interests. And to ours. That would mean us embracing the French and Germans and smiling! HaHa! We are not stupid I think. (There is a big danger to us here. Blair is next to being Catholic. He married one, takes communion with them and mass I think and his children go to a Catholic school. There are seven Catholic contries in Europe. I can see Rome getting her empire back soon.)

Hello poncho.

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

I don't understand the idea of you saying 'we Americans' and disparaging collectivism. Are you carrying a contradiction?

Hello JesusandGeorge04.

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

It can't be bad can it?
The government has a duty to all it's citizens and all it's citizens have the right to expect a full belly, clothing and shelter. It is good to be charitable, I would never undermine charity but if it can become 'not charity' but a guaranteed right you have gained one more citizen. Make him beg and you have damaged him with your love! Give him nothing and you have an enemy in your camp.
That's simple logic. Imagine love causing harm? Charity might not be love. The basic necessities of life should not be considered charity but a right to all men. Everything else on top of that can be charity.

johnp.

 

[poncho]

I probably am carring a contradiction Johnp. I went to public school and grew up with the same indoctrination as everyone else there. Still trying to recover from "social" studies.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Hey johnp:

Things are a little different here in the USA. You said several things:

Then you must be willing to spend ten times more on your own personal safety.

Why? What do you mean here, do you mean that there will be more poverty and therefore more crime without welfare programs? I disagree, the welfare state that we have created here in the United States is never enough to lift people out of poverty, just keep them dependent upon the government for survival. The truth is that is actually increases crime and desperation because the recipients see no way out.

When it comes to foreign nations and terrorists threatening my safety I do look for my tax supported military to protect us, but as far as my own personal safety, that is my responsibility. I realize that is a very "American" point of view but in my way of thinking if you are not armed and prepared to defend yourself your not much of a man.

the government must ensure all have the basic necessities without a means test.

Why? Sorry I just don't get that.

We receive unemployment benefit for the first year. No questions asked but if you left or were sacked. Sacked means you get it. Left of your own accord means a means test and social security payments with regular interviews to see where you are at with getting a job.

Here in the US it is very different. I have been on unemployment before. Here we receive unemployment benefits for 6 months. To receive payments you must prove that you did not leave your job of your own accord or were fired for cause. If you broke an company policy and got fired, you are on your own. If you quit, then you get nothing. Also you must document that you have had interviews and applied for work. Now after you have been out of work for 3 months the reason you left your job becomes irrelevant and you may reapply. Also if the unemployment in your state is greater than one and a half times the national average benefits may be extended for an additional 3 months. Basically our unemployment benefits are for workers who's jobs were eliminated due to no fault of their own. At least these were the rules when I was on unemployment back in 2001.

The government has a duty to all it's citizens and all it's citizens have the right to expect a full belly, clothing and shelter.

I disagree, the government gives opportunity, that is all. The results are up to us.

Hey, there are big differences in our countries. We have some Americans over here who think we should be more like yall. I say we let them live in England. Of course you probably have a few that would be happier over here. Go ahead and send them over. People should live where they want.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by North Carolina You can’t be talking about the current war in Iraq fought for our own national security and for the benefit of not only millions of Iraqi and Unites States Citizens but also for the political stability of the mideast and the security of nations throughout the world.

Iraq was no threat to us or anyone else... Bush Sr. took care of that; Saddam couldn't even control parts of his own country, much less anyone else... might I add that people of the region are opposed to our meddling?

As over 100,000 Iraqis have died, who is benefitting from this slaughter? Oil men.

The only immoral conduct has been on the part of those who would leave the Iraqi people to die without a stable form of government or leave our soldiers in harms way without the support and tools to be successful in their mission.

You mean the Bush administration, who has furmented this chaos and cut back our soldier's benefits?

Back to the topic of this post, I think it is obvious that we spend way to much tax payer money on supporting those who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives.

Kind of interesting that you should choose only those verses that loosely construed require you to give the least.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by North Carolina Tentmaker:
I disagree, the welfare state that we have created here in the United States is never enough to lift people out of poverty, just keep them dependent upon the government for survival. The truth is that is actually increases crime and desperation because the recipients see no way out.

Proof?

I disagree, the government gives opportunity, that is all. The results are up to us.

What if there is no opportunity? For millions... that opportunity is far, far away.

 

[LadyEagle]

The preamble of The Constitution of the United States of America, ...promote the general welfare...

What if there is no opportunity? For millions... that opportunity is far, far away

Especially for the millions who have been ripped apart by suction and scraping from the wombs of their mothers.

Hey, I will be among the first to admit that my government is evil and corrupt - as are all governments on this planet. Some are more evil and corrupt than others, though. What is your government doing to stop abortion?

 

[johnp.]

Hello LadyEagle.

What is your government doing to stop abortion?

What's the noise I hear from all around about homosexual marriage when there are tens of millions of children being murdered? What are we going to do about it?

What if there is no opportunity?

Do you know what the Thatcher government told us JesusandGeorge04? They told us to 'get on yer bike' can you believe that? After they told us that the unemployment was necessary for the good of the country. 'Get on yer bike!'
I tell you we were on the brink of a revolution in the early 80's after they introduced the Poll tax. They will always try to snatch back and put us in our place. Rights are hard.

johnp.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

What if there is no opportunity? For millions... that opportunity is far, far away.

Not in the United states it is not. Now if you refer to millions of others throughout the world then I might agree with you but not here. The problem is not lack of opportunity but lack of resolve. Millions of Americans have worked there way out of poverty, out of the projects. They have worked hard to earn their education and their livelihood.

I don't know how your student mix is there at Clemson but when I was down the road at Georgia Tech we had a few rich kids who had parents pay their way, but we had hundreds of kids like myself who worked hard and paid their own way. There are jobs, scholarships, and loans available.

For anyone who can make it to the U.S. (and other countries I am sure), that opportunity is close at hand and they can blame no one but themselves if they refuse to take advantage of it.

 

[Matt Black]

NCT, I believe (I think it was you but forgive me if I got that wrong) you referred to being unemployed and that the benefits you were paid only lasted for six months. My question is: what happened or would have happened after the six months - how would you have supported yourself and your family if you were still jobless?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Yes Matt, that was me, good question.

In fact I was only two weeks away from having my unemployment benefits expire when I found a new job. I had the misfortune of being out of work prior to Sep 11, 2001 and in the months after that US Companies seemed reluctant to hire to new employees.

I was receiving about $160.00 per week from unemployment (I have no idea how many pounds or euros that is right now). That amount differs throughout the US Depending on the county in which you are filing. I have heard that some counties with higher cost of living indexes pay a lot more.

The way the US Unemployment works anything you earn working comes off the top of your benefit. So if I took a temp job for one day and made $100, then my benefit that week would only be $60. Therefore if you are on unemployment it does not pay to work unless you cam make over that $160 per week.

I am a bivocational minister so I can make some money preaching. I get a revival from time to time and can make pretty good but most of the time it is not much. Of course every little bit helps. A friend of mine owns a large chicken farm and offered me a job shoveling out the chicken houses for $200 a week. I really did not want to do that, but if my benefits had run out I would have. I could have found a lot of temporary day labor type work, but I never did because I would have lost my benefit. Also when I was out of work my wife found a job almost immediately so she was working while I stayed home with our four children.

So, I had my wife's salary, gifts and benevolence from friends, family, and churches we had been a part of. We took advantage of a government program that provided health insurance for my children while I was out of work (they had better coverage than when I was employed, the government provided dental and prescription drug coverage that I did not have when working). There are many food banks and WIC was still available. We never got around to applying for WIC, but if the benefits had run out I was planning to. WIC is a US Government program that provides food for "Women, Infants, and Children." I also never applied for government food stamps which is a food allowance that is good at most grocery stores.

The bottom line is that there are many government and private programs out there. Some I took advantage of and others I did not. God did provide for us and we made it through a very difficult time. Had my benefits run out I am sure he would have continued to provide.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by billwald:
What is the govt's obligation to pay to keep people alive?

Is the govt obligated to keep people alive as long as it is technically possible?

Is it the govt's obligation to pay for every new drug even though a generic may be 90% as effective?

These are not questions of moral rights and wrongs. They're questions of what we decide the government should be doing at any given point with any given issue, and these are likely to change over time.