The Primary Function of Gov't

[Sallow]

BOTH are enexorably tied together. The Constitution was the next step...as the DOI is equally valid as the Constitution, and carrieds as much weight.

.

It absolutely does not. There is no legislation or policy that comes from the Declaration of Independence. It was a one shot deal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need. Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

The function of government is something that has been debated for centuries by Hobbs, Locke, Mill, and a myriad of other political philosophers. Government has many functions. Our own says that it is the protection and defense of the country. But the Constitution also provides that congress may act for the general welfare of its people and may regulate commerce among the several states. What constitutes proper general welfare and commerce clause activity has been addressed by the high court since its inception and is whatever is defined by the court until it changes its definition.

We have always run on debt since the american revolution. you can like that... or not. and there is a way to balance the budget as it was balanced when clinton was president... reinstate the bush tax cuts and get rid of waste.. military or otherwise. ending the wars of choice will help, too.

i hope that helps.

Of course it didn't help. Who are these people you named? Hobbs, isn't he a cat or something in a cartoon? Locke? John, that guy in "LOST"? What the hell does he have to say about government? Mill? British actor?

Sarah Palin agrees with Wiseacre, so does Glen Beck and Rush. They've explained the role of government and they're all loyal patriotic Christian Americans.

 

[Wiseacre]

So where does it say that the states' primary function is to take care of it's citizens? Or their responsibility?

What is "it"? Are you referring to the U.S. Constitution? If so, the Constitution doesn't establish the state governments or state what their powers are. All I'm saying is that help for the poor was a state government responsibility from the beginning of the nation. It's only federal involvement in this that's relatively new. The potential for it was there in the Constitution from the beginning, but it was never resorted to until the Depression wiped out state resources.

The thing about promote the general welfare should not translate into "taking care of it's people". I think the key word there is "promote", that doesn't mean to guarantee equal outcomes, redistribute wealth, or to provide an economic safety net. Instead, it should mean do what's necessary to increase opportunities, improve the business environment, and generally avoid making it more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living. It should mean working with rather than against the business community, which we haven't been too good at lately.

There are times when the business community, or at least those at the top of it, need to be worked against. It's completely false to suggest that we all have the same motivations or desires; class conflict is real and the government exists, or should, to promote the well-being of everyone, not merely of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else.

The main thing making it "more difficult to do what you want to do to make a living" is maldistribution of wealth, and government policy that favors the very rich and hurts the rest of us. It's time we took the government back from the rich. It's supposed to be ours, not theirs.

This is what I'm questioning, I contend that taking care of the poor was never designated as a responsibility for ANY level of gov't. That would imply somebody has a right to be then care of, but I do not know of document where that that right is established in law.

Now, about the assertion that gov't policy that favors the very rich and hurts the rest of us. There are no policies that favor the very rich; there are also no economic policies that promote economic growth that do not result in rich folks getting richer. It's inescapable, economic growth by definition means investment, primarily by those with the most money to invest. And with the most return on investment too, so the rich get richer.

 

[The T]

BOTH are enexorably tied together. The Constitution was the next step...as the DOI is equally valid as the Constitution, and carrieds as much weight.

.

It absolutely does not. There is no legislation or policy that comes from the Declaration of Independence. It was a one shot deal.

OTH Documents are TIED together.

Learn your history.

The Constitution codified the DOI.

They were written to work together. Many of the Founders insisted upon it.

 

[FactFinder]

BOTH are enexorably tied together. The Constitution was the next step...as the DOI is equally valid as the Constitution, and carrieds as much weight.

.

It absolutely does not. There is no legislation or policy that comes from the Declaration of Independence. It was a one shot deal.

Did you ever imagine that it may be because that was so pure that no perversion could be added? Irony is you are probably one of those "strict Constitutionaliists"

 

[Bfgrn]

Minor debt is one thing, when it approaches 100% of GDP, that's another. To me that's the height of irresponsibility, increasing debt that your children and grandchildren will have to service.

But the real question is this business of gov'ts primary function. A "social safety net" is the usual phrase, something we didn't guarantee in the past but have overburdened ourselves with these days. Aside from the expense, it disincentivizes many people to work, take risks, build something. The Left is always going on about 'fairness', but I wonder if we're really being fair in treating people in a fashion that takes away their motivation and independence.

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

 

[Wiseacre]

Minor debt is one thing, when it approaches 100% of GDP, that's another. To me that's the height of irresponsibility, increasing debt that your children and grandchildren will have to service.

But the real question is this business of gov'ts primary function. A "social safety net" is the usual phrase, something we didn't guarantee in the past but have overburdened ourselves with these days. Aside from the expense, it disincentivizes many people to work, take risks, build something. The Left is always going on about 'fairness', but I wonder if we're really being fair in treating people in a fashion that takes away their motivation and independence.

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

 

[Bfgrn]

Minor debt is one thing, when it approaches 100% of GDP, that's another. To me that's the height of irresponsibility, increasing debt that your children and grandchildren will have to service.

But the real question is this business of gov'ts primary function. A "social safety net" is the usual phrase, something we didn't guarantee in the past but have overburdened ourselves with these days. Aside from the expense, it disincentivizes many people to work, take risks, build something. The Left is always going on about 'fairness', but I wonder if we're really being fair in treating people in a fashion that takes away their motivation and independence.

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

We tried a charity only approach in America. It failed.

Before Medicare, 56% of people 65 and older had no health insurance. Most couldn't afford it. Before Medicare, the elderly were among the most likely to be forced into poverty. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and removed the ominous threat of being one diagnosis away from losing everything they worked their entire lives for. And it gave the elderly the dignity to sustain their life without begging for help or imposing on children working to build their lives. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

Medicare is the VERY BEST of what this nation stands for.

 

[editec]

" The primary function of the government, any government, is to take care of it's people. That's the buy in. If a government isn't doing that..then it is a government that is a failure. "

Sounds about right to me.

Another poster wrote that in another thread. Just wondering how many of you believe that. I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one?

There are no set in stone things that every government must do. Governments do what needs to be done, depending on what the people are dealing with at that time an place.

Maybe it's building irrigation systems, defending the people from invading hordes, or maybe its creating make work projects like the pyrimids.

For the first 150 years or so of our country, that function was totally out of the gov'ts pervue. Family, friends, neighbors, churches, and other organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army took care of those in need.

For years local WELFARE was taken care of by local governments, FYI there was no Red Cross or Salvation army, back then, either

Why did that change, other than perhaps for political reasons to buy votes?

Times change and government change with the times.

No worries, the gov't will provide. No responsibilities either, somebody else will pay for it. Do we really want this kind of society? Surely we've seen the problems in Europe, where social democracies are being crushed by the financial burden of that primary function. They've raised individual taxes higher than ours, yet still do not have enough revenue to pay for all of the social programs. And now most are cutting back or have already done so.

So we've heard many times. Europe still eppears to be there

Question: many on the left demand fairness. Well what's fair about passing a 15 trillion dollar debt and growing, to future generations? That's what the primary function of taking care of our people has lead us to. I find no morality or honor or integrity about that. This isn't about rich people living like pigs; this is about everybody living like pigs, many on the gov'ts (and our's) dime. That's what happens when you let the gov't take care of you.

Deep, very deep.

 

[Wiseacre]

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

We tried a charity only approach in America. It failed.

Before Medicare, 56% of people 65 and older had no health insurance. Most couldn't afford it. Before Medicare, the elderly were among the most likely to be forced into poverty. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and removed the ominous threat of being one diagnosis away from losing everything they worked their entire lives for. And it gave the elderly the dignity to sustain their life without begging for help or imposing on children working to build their lives. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

Medicare is the VERY BEST of what this nation stands for.

Says you. I don't agree with any of what you're saying, I think there are better ways of handling healthcare than having the government, particularly the federal gov't running it. One way or another, seniors in this country are going to get screwed, because HC costs are rapidly exceeding our ability to pay for it. Right now Medicare is the poster child for fraud, waste, and abuse; it's unsustainable, with or without Obamacare, and you think this is the very best of what this nation stands for?

 

[Navy1960]

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961 John F. Kennedy





"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990 George H.W. Bush
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954 Dwight Eisenhower


In short, taking care of one's elderly, it sick, it's disabled, it's vets, are the measure of an advanced society as well as a compassionate one. This is simple concept is something that many people have understood and still do, no matter the political connection. The elderely are often those who great shoulders who we stand upon that built the nation we debate over. To abandon them, is to steal the heritage that we were given and cast aside a promise to those who will come after us. I submit we are better than this as a nation and as a people, and to simply dismiss things because of financial reasons is to not seek the answers that will make it stronger. It's my hope that our nation learns soon that financial matters are but one part of making a great nation and not all the parts that make it what it is and we can start by realizing that its a good thing to seek the counsel of those that came before us and take care of them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961 John F. Kennedy





"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990 George H.W. Bush
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954 Dwight Eisenhower


In short, taking care of one's elderly, it sick, it's disabled, it's vets, are the measure of an advanced society as well as a compassionate one. This is simple concept is something that many people have understood and still do, no matter the political connection. The elderely are often those who great shoulders who we stand upon that built the nation we debate over. To abandon them, is to steal the heritage that we were given and cast aside a promise to those who will come after us. I submit we are better than this as a nation and as a people, and to simply dismiss things because of financial reasons is to not seek the answers that will make it stronger. It's my hope that our nation learns soon that financial matters are but one part of making a great nation and not all the parts that make it what it is and we can start by realizing that its a good thing to seek the counsel of those that came before us and take care of them.

Great post Navy! Here are some more words of wisdom from President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter he wrote to his brother: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

 

[Foxfyre]

Minor debt is one thing, when it approaches 100% of GDP, that's another. To me that's the height of irresponsibility, increasing debt that your children and grandchildren will have to service.

But the real question is this business of gov'ts primary function. A "social safety net" is the usual phrase, something we didn't guarantee in the past but have overburdened ourselves with these days. Aside from the expense, it disincentivizes many people to work, take risks, build something. The Left is always going on about 'fairness', but I wonder if we're really being fair in treating people in a fashion that takes away their motivation and independence.

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

However hard hearted it might seem, the Founders never intended for government to dispense charity however great the need might be, for government to provide charity gives government the right to take away property from the people and transfer that property to whomever it deemed worthy to receive it. The Founders rightly knew that would quickly erode all rights and freedom of the people who would then have given government the power to determine what their rights would or would not be.

A moral society indeed takes care of those who cannot care for themselves. But a moral society does so by the people, not the federal government.

 

[The T]

Hey grandma...get your lazy ass out of that chair, get a fucking job, take a risk, build something!!!

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

Did you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Aww, c'mon now, I never said we as a society shouldn't care for the elderly or infirm, or those who cannot care for themselves. I did say this in the OP, which you apparently didn't read or ignored:

' I can see adding an addendum that says " for those cannot physically or mentally care for themselves ". However, is even that really the primary function of gov't? Or a secondary one? '

The question is, how and who? Is it the gov'ts responsibility, is it a right supported somewhere by law? I don't see it in the Bill of Rights, maybe I missed it. As a society, of course we can't have the disabled or aged living in squalor, but we've gone way beyond that to include people who are neither disabled nor aged. And that's not right, for them or for us.

However hard hearted it might seem, the Founders never intended for government to dispense charity however great the need might be, for government to provide charity gives government the right to take away property from the people and transfer that property to whomever it deemed worthy to receive it. The Founders rightly knew that would quickly erode all rights and freedom of the people who would then have given government the power to determine what their rights would or would not be.

A moral society indeed takes care of those who cannot care for themselves. But a moral society does so by the people, not the federal government.

Correct. That was the purpose of Churches and private charities. (Not to mention families taking care of thier own).

 

[Wiseacre]

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961 John F. Kennedy





"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990 George H.W. Bush
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954 Dwight Eisenhower


In short, taking care of one's elderly, it sick, it's disabled, it's vets, are the measure of an advanced society as well as a compassionate one. This is simple concept is something that many people have understood and still do, no matter the political connection. The elderely are often those who great shoulders who we stand upon that built the nation we debate over. To abandon them, is to steal the heritage that we were given and cast aside a promise to those who will come after us. I submit we are better than this as a nation and as a people, and to simply dismiss things because of financial reasons is to not seek the answers that will make it stronger. It's my hope that our nation learns soon that financial matters are but one part of making a great nation and not all the parts that make it what it is and we can start by realizing that its a good thing to seek the counsel of those that came before us and take care of them.

The question is not whether or not we as a society should care for the sick, disabled, and elderly, but rather how. Particularly at the federal level, and whether or not so-called entitlement programs are the gov'ts responsibility, let alone one of it's primary function.

What we're talking about here is the full blown nanny state, from cradle to grave. The absense of personal responsibility, because the gov't will provide all. The fact that it is totally unfeasible fiscally seems to be beside the point, how anyone can seriously believe this country can just continue increasing the debt/deficits with no eventual consequences is quite remarkable.

I heard this morning that French President Sarkozy will unveil an austerity program for France this coming week, maybe as soon as monday. Every social democracy has found itself in financial difficulties because they cannot continue to pay for it's excesses. They are ALL cutting back on their spending, they realize they cannot continue to keep their promisess. And seeing riots in the streets as a result. I wish we weren't making promises that we can't keep either.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961 John F. Kennedy





"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990 George H.W. Bush
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954 Dwight Eisenhower


In short, taking care of one's elderly, it sick, it's disabled, it's vets, are the measure of an advanced society as well as a compassionate one. This is simple concept is something that many people have understood and still do, no matter the political connection. The elderely are often those who great shoulders who we stand upon that built the nation we debate over. To abandon them, is to steal the heritage that we were given and cast aside a promise to those who will come after us. I submit we are better than this as a nation and as a people, and to simply dismiss things because of financial reasons is to not seek the answers that will make it stronger. It's my hope that our nation learns soon that financial matters are but one part of making a great nation and not all the parts that make it what it is and we can start by realizing that its a good thing to seek the counsel of those that came before us and take care of them.

Great post Navy! Here are some more words of wisdom from President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter he wrote to his brother: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

And more words of wisdom from President Thomas Jefferson:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those would not."

And lets not forget

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds we will have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for another...till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

 

[Foxfyre]

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

"It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation's strength lies in the well being of its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot remain static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our standard of living require constant revision." -June 30, 1961 John F. Kennedy





"And there's one thing I hope we will all be able to agree on. It's about our commitments. I'm talking about Social Security. To every American out there on Social Security, to every American supporting that system today, and to everyone counting on it when they retire, we made a promise to you, and we are going to keep it." - January 31, 1990 George H.W. Bush
"The system is not intended as a substitute for private savings, pension plans, and insurance protection. It is, rather, intended as the foundation upon which these other forms of protection can be soundly built. Thus, the individual's own work, his planning and his thrift will bring him a higher standard of living upon his retirement, or his family a higher standard of living in the event of his death, than would otherwise be the case. Hence the system both encourages thrift and self-reliance, and helps to prevent destitution in our national life." -January 14, 1954 Dwight Eisenhower


In short, taking care of one's elderly, it sick, it's disabled, it's vets, are the measure of an advanced society as well as a compassionate one. This is simple concept is something that many people have understood and still do, no matter the political connection. The elderely are often those who great shoulders who we stand upon that built the nation we debate over. To abandon them, is to steal the heritage that we were given and cast aside a promise to those who will come after us. I submit we are better than this as a nation and as a people, and to simply dismiss things because of financial reasons is to not seek the answers that will make it stronger. It's my hope that our nation learns soon that financial matters are but one part of making a great nation and not all the parts that make it what it is and we can start by realizing that its a good thing to seek the counsel of those that came before us and take care of them.

The question is not whether or not we as a society should care for the sick, disabled, and elderly, but rather how. Particularly at the federal level, and whether or not so-called entitlement programs are the gov'ts responsibility, let alone one of it's primary function.

What we're talking about here is the full blown nanny state, from cradle to grave. The absense of personal responsibility, because the gov't will provide all. The fact that it is totally unfeasible fiscally seems to be beside the point, how anyone can seriously believe this country can just continue increasing the debt/deficits with no eventual consequences is quite remarkable.

I heard this morning that French President Sarkozy will unveil an austerity program for France this coming week, maybe as soon as monday. Every social democracy has found itself in financial difficulties because they cannot continue to pay for it's excesses. They are ALL cutting back on their spending, they realize they cannot continue to keep their promisess. And seeing riots in the streets as a result. I wish we weren't making promises that we can't keep either.

All the riots we are seeing both here in the USA and across Europe stem from one single point of view: i.e. that the people believe they are entitled for others to give them something that they want and they don't want to be responsible for obtaining it for themselves.

The Founders rightly knew that once government began dispensing any form of benevolence, charity, or benefits to special interests, the 'domestic tranquility' that is one of the goals of the Constitution would be in serious jeopardy. So long as we maintained a classless society in which nobody was obligated to stay in whatever situation they found themselves but everybody was responsible for his own interests and moral obligations, we would have domestic tranquility as well as a higher form of justice than anything government could dictate.

They were so right.

 

[bripat9643]

We tried a charity only approach in America. It failed.

Really? When? What are the indications of this "failure?"

Before Medicare, 56% of people 65 and older had no health insurance. Most couldn't afford it. Before Medicare, the elderly were among the most likely to be forced into poverty. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and removed the ominous threat of being one diagnosis away from losing everything they worked their entire lives for. And it gave the elderly the dignity to sustain their life without begging for help or imposing on children working to build their lives. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

Medicare is the VERY BEST of what this nation stands for.

So before Medicare, ingrates like you wouldn't lift a finger to help your indigent parents pay their medical bills?

Before Medicare, people took care of their parents if they didn't have any money. all Medicare has done is put the responsibility on total strangers rather than family members.

 

[The T]

We tried a charity only approach in America. It failed.

Really? When? What are the indications of this "failure?"

Before Medicare, 56% of people 65 and older had no health insurance. Most couldn't afford it. Before Medicare, the elderly were among the most likely to be forced into poverty. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and removed the ominous threat of being one diagnosis away from losing everything they worked their entire lives for. And it gave the elderly the dignity to sustain their life without begging for help or imposing on children working to build their lives. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

Medicare is the VERY BEST of what this nation stands for.

So before Medicare, ingrates like you wouldn't lift a finger to help your indigent parents pay their medical bills?

Before Medicare, people took care of their parents if they didn't have any money. all Medicare has done is put the responsibility on total strangers rather than family members.

*

 

[Foxfyre]

We tried a charity only approach in America. It failed.

Really? When? What are the indications of this "failure?"

Before Medicare, 56% of people 65 and older had no health insurance. Most couldn't afford it. Before Medicare, the elderly were among the most likely to be forced into poverty. Medicare alone lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty, and removed the ominous threat of being one diagnosis away from losing everything they worked their entire lives for. And it gave the elderly the dignity to sustain their life without begging for help or imposing on children working to build their lives. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

Medicare is the VERY BEST of what this nation stands for.

So before Medicare, ingrates like you wouldn't lift a finger to help your indigent parents pay their medical bills?

Before Medicare, people took care of their parents if they didn't have any money. all Medicare has done is put the responsibility on total strangers rather than family members.

Before Medicare, I can't think of a single one of my grandparents, aunts, uncles, elderly neighbors etc. etc. etc. who ever went without seeing a doctor or being hospitalized because they couldn't afford it. Probably most didn't have insurance, but neverthless, access to a doctor when you needed one was there.

Only after government started getting involved in and meddling in healthcare did costs start rising to the point that insurance became necessary in order to get routine healthcare.